Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

IMPERIAL COLLEGE BILL

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL

Read a Second Time, and committed.

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 4 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Means-tested Benefit

Mr. Berry: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of people are currently dependent on means-tested benefits; and what were the figures for 1979. [11368]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The latest estimate is that 26.4 per cent. of the population live in households receiving income support, family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit. It is not possible to make a direct comparison with the position in 1979 since the present structure of the benefits did not exist then.

Mr. Berry: Can the Minister confirm that in 1979 one in 12 people were dependent on means-tested benefits and that today the figure has doubled to one in six? Is this not the result of what the Bishop of Liverpool recently described as the "running sores" of unemployment, low pay and poverty, all of which have increased dramatically under the Government?

Mr. Mitchell: I am surprised at the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked. He should know that unemployment benefit takes up about 10 per cent. of the Department of Social Security budget. He should condemn the Opposition Front Bench, which wants means testing to be extended. In the unlikely event of a Labour Government being returned after the next general election, I understand that Labour's proposals are to means-test both child benefit and the state pension, which would mean a significant increase in means testing.
The hon. Gentleman should be aware that two thirds of the growth in social security spending has been directed to helping the disabled. The Government have provided an enormous increase in support for them, as they have in helping the elderly. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House which part of that growth he would like to retract.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to get people off means-tested benefits is to get them into work? Is it not important, therefore, to recognise that under this Government two jobs have been created every minute since 1992? That figure has not been disputed by the International Labour Organisation or even by the Labour party. The Government are creating jobs. Should not we take the words of the Bishop of Liverpool as endorsing the Government's policies?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. The Government's policy is dedicated to getting people back into work. It has been extremely successful, as my hon. Friend has pointed out. Since the general election, unemployment has fallen by more than 1 million. The United Kingdom has more of its citizens in work and fewer unemployed than any other major European country.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced the introduction of parent plus, which will be piloted from April. Parent plus will be the best scheme anywhere in the world for helping lone parents back into work. It is shortly to be piloted throughout the United Kingdom. The private sector will be involved as well as the public sector. The Government are taking decisive and effective action to help the unemployed, yet all we hear from the Opposition is meaningless waffle that is designed to con the electorate.

Mr. Wicks: Can the Minister explain why it is that one in three babies in Tory Britain are born to families that are dependent on the means test, compared with one in 10 in 1979? Will he help the House work out why it is that a Tory Government who in 1979 promised to get the state off people's backs have ended up creating a massive dependency state, one which includes a quarter of all households in Britain?

Mr. Mitchell: We all care about helping the people whom the hon. Gentleman has just described. The Labour party has a pretty strange definition of poverty: it means that when we increase income support levels, its measure of poverty also increases. The Government have a range of policies designed to help people back into work. In the lone parent area, the hon. Gentleman will know of the importance of the after-school kiddies clubs, which have been greatly expanded under the Government's programme. The Government have put £24 million on the table to help expand that form of after-school child care. I reject what the hon. Gentleman said, and underline the Government's success in helping people back into work.

Benefit Fraud

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for avoiding fraud in the benefit system; and if he will make a statement. [11369]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Tackling fraud and abuse is my top priority. The Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill, which successfully completed its Committee stage this morning, will strengthen our ability to fight fraud, and will enable us to galvanise local authorities into tackling fraud in housing benefit.

Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining the action that the Government are taking. Will he join me in paying tribute to the staff in the King's Lynn benefits office, who work very hard to tackle fraud in Norfolk and elsewhere? Is he aware of a particular problem in Norfolk due to the recent arrival from eastern Europe of illegal immigrants who have sought work and, in some cases, benefits? Does he agree that such abuse must be tackled? What is he doing about it?

Mr. Lilley: I certainly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Benefits Agency staff in King's Lynn and throughout the country. They work with dedication and commitment to help those entitled to benefit and to ensure that money does not go to those who are not entitled to it.
I shall look into the problem in my hon. Friend's constituency of illegal immigrants and others who are not entitled to benefits claiming them in those circumstances.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Secretary of State accept that the data-matching powers in the fraud Bill will prejudice privacy and confer unprecedented powers on the state? Will he give constructive consideration to the case for introducing into the Bill a code of practice to ensure that central and local government departments and contracted agencies comply with the best international standards for data protection?

Mr. Lilley: I do not accept that those powers are an infringement of civil liberties. We are not requiring any more information from individuals than is already taken. We are simply using the power to ensure that people are not, for example, working and claiming. We have said that we will consider the appropriateness of codes of practice, and we will discuss that matter with those responsible for data protection.

Mr. John Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House about the success of his fraud hotline, which has been warmly welcomed by the majority of taxpayers who work hard and do not see why their taxes should help fraudsters?

Mr. Lilley: I can tell my hon. Friend that the fraud hotline has been extremely successful. More than 100,000 calls have been received. They are still coming in at a rate of more than 5,000 a week, which is high such a long time after the original announcement. It shows that honest, upright individuals are incensed by the minority who try to rip off the system. We entirely uphold their opinions.

Housing Benefit Fraud

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on housing benefit fraud by landlords. [11370]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): We have a comprehensive strategy, which is strengthened by the current fraud Bill, to combat all housing benefit fraud, including landlord fraud. We support local authorities through an incentive scheme and, now, through challenge funding, £8 million of challenge funds were made available to authorities in 1996–97, and we will double that to £16 million in 1997–98. We are also setting up an inspectorate to help to ensure that all authorities tackle fraud effectively.

Mrs. Kennedy: Notwithstanding the Minister's answer, will he confirm that housing benefit fraud is currently estimated to cost us £2 billion a year, and that the largest part of that is recognised to be organised landlord fraud? Have not the Government missed an opportunity, during the passing of the fraud Bill, to introduce a new offence of landlord fraud, as the Opposition suggested? Does that not show the Government's commitment to a deregulated, private housing-for-rent market at all costs, including costs to the taxpayer?

Mr. Burt: I do not recognise all the figures given by the hon. Lady. Housing benefit fraud is estimated at about £1 billion, and landlord fraud constitutes about £150 million of that, so it is not the largest part.
The Bill that we are currently taking through the House substantially strengthens powers against all forms of fraud, including landlord fraud. All the measures involved—data matching, new powers of entry to landlords' premises, more ways of recovering overpaid housing benefit, and easier prosecution and suffer penalties where false representations have been made for claims—including up to seven years' imprisonment for one offence—show that we deliver serious penalties for housing benefit and landlord fraud. For all that the hon. Lady says, it is we who introduced those measures, and we have brought the Opposition along with us.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that he pursues landlord fraud vigorously in Liverpool, London or wherever it occurs? At the end of the day, it makes honest landlords less likely to let their properties and, consequently, makes honest people looking for property less likely to find any.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is important for the private rented market to continue to expand; it is important to the integrity of benefit for it to be properly handled, and for fraud to be clamped down. We are prepared to consider ideas advanced by all kinds of authority, and, indeed, the local authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) has received a £140,000 challenge fund grant to help it to root out more landlord fraud.
My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the need to ensure that honest landlords are protected like everyone else.

Cold Weather Payments

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he received during the recent cold weather about cold weather payments. [11372]

Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of his cold weather payments; and if he will make a statement. [11378]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): We received 88 letters about the cold weather payments scheme during the recent cold period.
The scheme works well, responding flexibly to target help where it is most needed. So far this winter, over 5 million payments, worth over £43 million, have been made to almost 3 million people.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Minister aware that when some of my hon. Friends and I went to No. 10 Downing street at the end of December to deliver a letter, although it had been extremely cold for some 10 days, no cold weather payments had been made during that time, causing untold misery and hardship to many pensioners on low incomes? Why are the Government so determined to oppose the measure that my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) wanted to introduce to deal with the chill factor? Does that not show that the Government do not care a damn about those in need?

Mr. Evans: No. According to paragraph 9.7 of the advice from the Meteorological Office that we took last summer and placed in the Library,
In much of the country, the additional domestic heating requirements generated as a result of the effect of the exposure of houses to wind are too small and too highly variable to be included sensibly in such a scheme.
It is also clear that the Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill proposed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) did not explain how to take the chill factor into account in a sensible, workable or practicable fashion. It would have caused chaos.
The hon. Gentleman—or, if not the hon. Gentleman, his Front Bench—ought to answer this point. He may wish to spend more money, but the hon. Lady's Bill—vague though it is—would cost several hundred million pounds a year more during a winter as severe as last winter.

Mr. Jones: Will the Minister look at the undoubted anomalies in this system? For example, in my constituency of Deeside payments are dictated by readings at RAF Valley, 90 miles to the west and warmed by the Irish sea. When the polar wind blew, many pensioners' domestic budgets were blown to smithereens because they only had enough money to heat their homes. Will the Minister please be more generous, and review the system thoroughly?

Mr. Evans: Every summer we ask the Meteorological Office to review whether the linking of particular parts of constituencies with particular weather stations is

appropriate. The greater part of the hon. Gentleman's constituency is dealt with from Crosby, which has triggered a cold weather payment once this winter.
Obviously, the detailed workings of the scheme are reviewed after every winter. Let me make it clear, however, that responding to Opposition calls to extend the payments to all pensioners, or to all people on income support, would cost between £200 million and £300 million a year more than was spent this year or last year. If the commitment of the right hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to the control totals is to be believed, that is an expenditure commitment that must be met by a Labour cut.

Mr. Batiste: Does my hon. Friend realise that measurements taken in Leeds city centre are consistently some degrees warmer than those in the rural hinterland, which includes much of my constituency? When he speaks again to the Meteorological Office, will he ask it to review where it takes its measurements in various parts of west Yorkshire, because they are not limited just to Leeds, so that people's entitlement to this important benefit, which was introduced by the Government, relates to their experience at home?

Mr. Evans: The simple answer to my hon. Friend is yes. If he or any hon. Member wants to make specific points, as numerous hon. Members did last summer, they will of course all be referred to the Meteorological Office and the advice will be carefully considered.

Mrs. Peacock: I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about the number of payments and the amount of money that has been paid, but will he please take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) about the weather centre in the centre of Leeds? Taking measurements there is useless to people in my constituency who live on the hill. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I have made representations on the matter. Will he please take it back to the Meteorological Office?

Mr. Evans: The simple answer is yes. My hon. Friend made the points last summer. The Meteorological Office was not persuaded, but I shall be happy to reconsider the matter if there is any further information or if there are any further arguments.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the Minister bear in mind the special needs of voluntary funded hostels such as Bolton's Salvation Army hostel, which faces higher heating charges in cold weather, but whose tenants are free to spend their supplements as they wish? Has he any encouraging message for voluntary fund raisers who have to raise the money to keep hostels going?

Mr. Evans: That is a separate issue from the cold weather payment scheme that we have been discussing.

Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister explain why, after the Secretary of State for Social Security has spent an extra £15 billion on welfare in the past four years, pensioners and poor families throughout Britain still have to make a choice between eating and heating? Does the Minister accept that cuts in home insulation and the imposition of value added tax on fuel have only worsened the plight of


the poorest people in society, especially in relation to fuel poverty? Does he agree that the deliberate sabotaging of the recent Cold Weather Payments (Wind Chill Factor) Bill and the failure to set up a trial project in Scotland only add insult to injury? Surely fuel poverty is a scandal in 1997. When will the Government start to take the matter seriously?

Mr. Evans: The House and the country will take the hon. Gentleman seriously when he tells us exactly what he is prepared to spend and on what. Since 1991, £350 million has been paid out for the home energy efficiency payment scheme and no less than 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom housing stock has had its insulation improved as a result of the scheme. I make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman, and to anyone else who doubts it, that, if he wishes to extend the cold weather payment scheme to everyone on income support and to all pensioners, it will cost £250 million to £300 million a year more in a winter of last year's severity.

Benefits Spending

Mr. Purchase: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the increase in spending on benefits since 1979. [11373]

Mr. Lilley: Since 1979, spending has increased by £40 billion in real terms. More than two thirds of that increased help is for the elderly, the long-term sick and, above all, disabled people.

Mr. Purchase: Does the Secretary of State realise that the growth in those benefits is almost twice the growth of annual average gross domestic product in Britain under Conservative rule? Does he not recognise that the figures that he has announced show that the Government's economic policy has failed? Most important, does he not understand that his Government have robbed young people of the understanding of the connection between work and welfare, and that the best welfare policy is to put young people back to work?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman was not listening to my answer. Two thirds of the extra help goes to disabled people, long-term sick and elderly people. Is he saying that it is a failure to increase help to disabled people and that Labour would undo it? Is he saying that it is a failure that there are more elderly people? The life expectancy of someone reaching retirement age now is more than two years higher than under Labour.

Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his reforms, including his proposed reforms of family benefits, are essential to control the increase in social security spending? Is he aware that his planned reforms of family benefits would not be implemented by the Labour party? Has it told him where the money will come from to compensate for the lost savings?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The reforms that we announced in the Budget will ultimately save about £500 million through equalising benefits for lone parents with those available to married couples, which is not only fair but makes it possible for

us to improve benefits elsewhere. The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has said that she will not implement the measures necessary to save that amount, but will live within the total budget. To increase benefits for lone parents by £500 million, she must take money either from married couples, single people who do not have children or elderly people. Can she tell us which?

Ms Harman: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the social security budget is £15 billion a year more than it was in 1992? Will he confirm that that means that, as Secretary of State, he has increased the social security budget by 20 per cent.? Will he admit that it is no good blaming the elderly? They account for only £1.5 billion of that £15 billion annual increase. Will he admit that it is no good blaming the disabled? They account for only £4 billion of the £15 billion increase. Will he admit that the main reason for the £15 billion increase is that one in five households are without work?

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady's figures are wrong. That is the simple answer to her question. Perhaps she will answer my question and explain—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, this is Question Time, when the Government answer questions.

Mr. Lilley: The simple answer to the hon. Lady's question is that her figures are wrong. Two thirds of the growth in social security spending in real terms since I took office has been spent on disabled, elderly and long-term sick people. That is fact, and I shall put the figures in the Library. I am sorry that the hon. Lady did not however use the privilege that the House offers to give us the answer that we want: where will she get the money?

Occupational Pensions

Sir David Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those retiring now are in receipt of occupational pensions; and what he estimates the proportion will be in 10 years' time. [11374]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): It is estimated that in 1979, 55 per cent. of recently retired people were in receipt of an occupational pension, compared with 70 per cent. in 1994–95. This is projected to rise further to more than 75 per cent. in the next 10 years.

Sir David Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that adequate occupational pensions have done a great deal to ease poverty and anxiety among retired people and that further extension of them is essential if retired people are to live fuller and more satisfying lives?

Mr. Heald: The Government's policy to maintain the value of the basic state pension, encourage more private provision and target help on those most in need has led to record rises in pensioners' incomes—rising almost as


much each year as they did during the whole of the last Labour Government's period in office. My hon. Friend is right; we must go further.

Mr. Frank Field: After 18 years of Conservative rule, will the Minister tell the House how many pensioners are still poor?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman asks a question that I am very happy to answer. Even the poorest pensioners have seen incomes rise by 28 per cent. since 1979.

Mr. Field: How many are in poverty?

Mr. Heald: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to ask that question, because he defines poverty in relation to the level of income support—so that, if one increases income support, one ends up with more poverty. It is nonsense. What is demonstrable is that, since 1979, under the Government, pensioners' incomes have increased dramatically—on average, by 60 per cent.—and that even the poorest pensioners have seen a 28 per cent. increase. That is very different from what happened under Labour, when pensioners were robbed of their savings through high inflation.

Mr. Dykes: There has been spectacular growth in private pensions—which have given the elderly new horizons and new freedoms, and are a matter of great pride for Conservative Members. None the less, is my hon. Friend satisfied that expenses and commissions on the new pension schemes are now under adequate control?

Mr. Heald: As my hon. Friend says, it is important to ensure that pension charges are kept to the minimum. The new disclosure rules are having that effect, and the Securities and Investments Board is meeting with pension providers to discuss those issues. The most important factor, however, is the yield on pensions. Since 1980, there has been a 9 per cent. annual real yield on private pensions in the United Kingdom. We also have more invested in pensions than all of Europe put together. The result is that, in 2030, when the UK's finances are in surplus, France and Germany will have a debt of 100 per cent. of GDP, and Japan's debt will be 300 per cent. of GDP.

State Earnings-related Pension Scheme

Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to ensure that SERPS becomes a partially funded scheme. [11375]

Mr. Heald: We have no proposals to make SERPS a partially funded scheme. Our policy is to encourage private pension provision through the contracting out of SERPS.

Mr. Flynn: Does the Minister agree that the two most profitable pension schemes have been occupational pensions and SERPS? He failed to mention the 2 million people who face impoverishment in old age because of their money-purchased personal pension schemes, and that only 7,000 of them have been compensated. Does he realise that someone on average wages who has been in a SERPS pension since 1978 will now be receiving an additional £70 a week, doubling his or her pension?

Why does not the Minister forget ideology and look anew at fresh pension schemes and at renewing and strengthening SERPS, so that it will be funded and run independently of the national insurance scheme and managed by independent managers?

Mr. Heald: I have examined the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and I believe that they make him the most expensive Labour Member. His wish list of extra DSS expenditure on pensions would cost more than £6.8 billion by 2000, and more than £65 billion by 2030. He is proof of the type of pressures that a Labour Government—were one, heaven forfend, elected—would face to increase public spending. His ideas would result in national insurance costs rising by a third.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing people to opt out of SERPS is exactly what the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) wants—a move towards a funded income-related scheme and away from a pay-as-you-go state scheme? Until the Labour party understands that we are achieving what it now says it wants, it is unlikely that Labour will be fit to govern.

Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is right. Contracting out of SERPS and encouraging the private sector are what have helped pension incomes to rise so fast since 1979. Let us not forget, however, that the Labour party is proposing equalising the state pension age at 60—

Ms Harman: That is not relevant.

Mr. Heald: It is relevant to SERPS, because Labour is talking about equalising the state pension age at 60, with a pension of £40 a week. With no income support, that would lead pensioners to destitution. It is risky—it is new Labour, new danger.

Income Support

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners entitled to income support who do not claim it. [11376]

Mr. Burt: The only way to determine the precise number not taking up their entitlement would be for them to come forward and make a claim. However, the most recent figures suggest that between 800,000 and 1.1 million pensioners have an unclaimed entitlement to income support.

Mr. Mitchell: Why are the Government so complacent about that extraordinarily high number of pensioners not claiming income support? The income of those million pensioners not claiming income support is £14 a week lower and they are not entitled to cold weather payments. Other estimates suggest that 800,000 of those pensioners are single women living on their own with no occupational pension and no savings. If the Government believe in targeted benefits, should they not be seeking out those people and ensuring that they get the money to which they are entitled, instead of wringing their hands and being complacent because they are saving money?

Mr. Burt: The Government are in no way complacent about those figures. It is the responsibility of the


Department to present information to the public about the availability of benefits. The Department's publicity budget for the past three years, including the current year, has been £84 million. Some £9 out of every £10 worth claiming is claimed and four out of five claimants are paid. Take-up campaigns must be properly targeted to be effective. We do that successfully with family credit. It is not possible to target a take-up campaign on pensioners in the way that the hon. Gentleman would like. However, there is a new Benefits Agency national awareness campaign, running from 13 to 26 January, entitled "Pensions and Benefits for Older People". It is our job constantly to put information before the public. If someone comes forward with a claim, we can, we will and we want to honour it.

Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend give a commitment to maintain the level of old-age pensions above the rate of the rise in the cost of living, as the Conservatives have done over the past 18 years, unlike Labour, who allowed the value of pensions to plummet while they were in office?

Mr. Burt: I can make that commitment to maintain the value of the pension. I am sure that my hon. Friend and the House will be happy to learn that, while 31 per cent. of those in the lowest tenth by income of the population in 1979 were pensioners, today that figure is only 7 per cent. Our commitment to maintain the value of the pension in line with inflation is clear. We have not threatened to means-test it, as has been suggested by Opposition Members.

Mr. Denham: The Minister says that he is not complacent. Does he agree with the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, his hon. Friend the Member for North Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who told the Standing Committee considering the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill in December:
we do not know why certain pensioners do not take up income support"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 5 December 1996; c. 44.]
Is that not the Tory scandal? While the Secretary of State has pushed up the cost of Tory failure by £15 billion a year, the Government have not even had time to find out why 1 million pensioners go without £14 a week, why 1 million pensioners miss out on cold weather payments and why 1 million pensioners cannot even get their eyes checked for nothing.

Mr. Burt: I am more than happy to agree with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who was entirely right. The hon. Gentleman's bluster would mean a great deal more if he committed himself and his colleagues to a take-up campaign that would deal with the problem that we face. No such commitment has been made, either while we were considering the Bill or since. It is all bluster and no money up front from Labour Members. We will continue to make sure that benefits are available to all who need them and to publicise them. The considerable advance in the position of pensioners under this Government is likely to continue only under the economic policies advocated by the Conservatives.

Mr. Devlin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that taking up benefits is not compulsory? There may be a variety of

reasons why elderly people do not wish to claim income support or other benefits. The best way to target those people is to make them aware that benefits are available if they want them, not to sneak into records of their savings and other matters to find out whether they are entitled and to tell them that they must have the benefit.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is correct. It is not possible to define in every circumstance why someone has not taken up a benefit. It may further reassure the House to know that local authorities are now under a general obligation, set out in our guidance, to use whatever information they have if it is suggested that someone might have a claim for benefit. We have also provided local authorities with the software to assist them in that task. The matter is much more complex than the Opposition suggest. If they are to work, take-up campaigns must be properly targeted. That was the case with family credit, and we increased the number of people claiming it. We shall continue our efforts to ensure that all those who need benefits get them.

Social Security Budget (Waste)

Mr. Gapes: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the annual cost of waste in the social security budget. [11377]

Mr. Roger Evans: The largest losses to the social security budget are the result of fraud. Stamping out benefit fraud and abuse remains our top priority. We have achieved record savings year on year and are on course, with the new "spend to save" initiative set out in the Budget, to save some £7 billion over the next three years.

Mr. Gapes: My question was about waste in the social security budget, not loss. Is it not a waste that 600,000 young people under the age of 25 are not in work? Is it not a waste that that costs the country £10 billion through crime, the cost of unemployment and the loss of income to those involved? Is it not a disgrace that the Government are doing nothing for young people? Only the Labour party has a programme to put 250,000 young people into work.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's question was about waste in the social security budget. If we did not divine the precise focus of his question, it was not for want of asking him in advance. The fact remains that unemployment is falling, and the Government have a series of schemes to promote youth employment.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the biggest ever waste in social security spending occurred when unemployment doubled in five years under a Labour Government? Will he also confirm that, in 18 years, unemployment has not become double what it was in 1979?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes powerful points, which I have no doubt are correct.

Cold Weather Payments

Mrs. Ewing: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in Scotland have


received cold weather payments since December 1996; and how many of these received payments for more than one week. [11379]

Mr. Roger Evans: Since the beginning of last December, 195,000 people in Scotland have received cold weather payments. Of these, 188,000 received more than one payment.

Mrs. Ewing: Although we all appreciate that there have been changes in the trigger mechanisms for cold weather payments, which were very important in the recent very cold spells, does the Minister accept that we should be following the examples of countries such as Ireland which make automatic payments during the coldest months and weeks of winter to ensure that people on the lowest state benefits are guaranteed such payments? In Scotland, the excess winter death rate is 16 per cent., whereas in Finland, which has a good programme, it is 9 per cent.

Mr. Evans: The existing scheme is automatic in the sense that a person does not have to make a claim if he is in the qualifying group. A payment is made when the Meteorological Office records seven days at 0 deg or less or, much more important, when it forecasts that the temperature will be 0 deg or less for seven days. The prospect of that payment is widely advertised locally and people realise that it will be coming shortly thereafter.
In the hon. Lady's constituency, Aviemore triggered the payment six times this winter and Kinloss three times. Braemar, which is not very far from the hon. Lady's constituency, holds the UK record for triggering the payment seven times.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware that our cold weather payments scheme quite properly takes account of the differences in temperature throughout the United Kingdom. Does he recall that southern Ireland—Eire—receives massive sums of our taxpayers' funds from Europe and is therefore spending our money?

Mr. Evans: I hear what my hon. Friend says about southern Ireland. On his first point, I welcome his support. The system is designed to target help where it is most needed when the weather is at its worst.

Pensions

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what new proposals he has to increase the level of the basic pension. [11380]

Mr. Lilley: The basic pension will be uprated by 2.1 per cent. from April, giving a standard rate pension of nearly £100 for a couple.

Mr. Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that the British pensioner is treated worse than almost any other pensioner in the whole of the European Union in terms of basic pension rights? The Government have betrayed the British pensioners. Those who suffered and sacrificed during the last war have been betrayed by the Conservative Government. By breaking the link between pensions and wages, the Government have let the

pensioners down and by gambling state earnings-related pension scheme money away on the stock market they have also let down the pensioners of tomorrow. The pensioners of this country will never forgive the Government.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member is mistaken. I advise him to read the report by Watsons which showed that, because we have a flat-rate basic pension, those who have low pay during their working lives are—with the benefit of the basic pension plus other support—at least as well off as, and usually better off than, pensioners in most other countries in Europe. Because of our success in building up occupational pensions, those with average earnings also do as well as or better than their counterparts. Uprating the basic pension in line with earnings rather than prices would cost £7.5 billion a year, which is why we have repudiated it—as, I believe, have Opposition Front Benchers recently, at whom the hon. Gentleman's ire might be well directed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11398]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend confirm the Government's continued support for successful schools? Will he sympathise with the head teachers and governors of St. Olave's and the London Oratory schools who will have difficulty in expanding their schools, even to accommodate more children of hypocritical Labour Front Benchers, if the Opposition have their way?

The Prime Minister: I can assure the House that we will press ahead with our plans to allow successful schools to expand, either before or after the general election. Last night, the Opposition voted to deny other parents the choice, and some children the opportunities, that they themselves enjoy. Our aim is to raise standards: they apparently peddle double standards.

Mr. Blair: I see now: it is now our fault that they cannot run a halfway competent Government. Why does the Prime Minister not simply call a halt to what is the fag end of a burnt-out Government? They have no legislative programme left and the country is tired of waiting: March—not March; May—not May. If they are so confident, why does not the Prime Minister, just for once, put a stop to the dithering, name the day and call a general election?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman clearly is not aware of the importance of the legislation that he has just dismissed. He clearly does not want the legislation against crime that we are proposing. He clearly


does not want the tougher sentences that we are proposing and he certainly does not want the educational choice for everyone that he himself has enjoyed.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Whenever the general election comes, will my right hon. Friend promise that, when he leads our party into it, he will not pledge to spend £30 billion more on public expenditure while at the same time saying that there will be no increase in taxation?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly confirm that we will not have £30 billion-worth of spending pledges. The Labour party is very keen to reassure people that it would not raise taxes, but it has not yet withdrawn the £30 billion-worth of spending pledges that make it inevitable that it will raise taxes, and it has not yet managed to school its Front-Bench spokesmen out of promising more expenditure on every occasion.

Mr. Miller: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11399]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Miller: I remind the Prime Minister of his words at Question Time on 28 January 1992, as this is the fifth anniversary of his pledge not to increase value added tax. Will he apologise to the millions of pensioners who this winter have had to pay the VAT that he imposed on their gas and electricity bills?

The Prime Minister: As the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I propose to answer.
The hon. Gentleman might bear it in mind that his windfall tax will impose just such a tax on utilities, on electricity and gas, and on pensioners, but the Labour party does not have the courage to say how much it will be. It says that it will raise and spend the money, but it does not say on whom it will be levied or how much it will be. If the hon. Gentleman is really concerned about VAT, perhaps he can stop what he knows to be the wholly untruthful smear campaign about our future plans on value added tax.

Mr. Marland: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is not, and never has been, his intention to impose VAT on Severn bridge tolls—[Laughter.]—and that, contrary to what the new Labour candidate for Forest of Dean says, it was not the Government's idea, but that of the European Transport Commissioner, who is a former leader of the British Labour party?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. Perhaps if Opposition Members had listened to my hon. Friend before they began scoffing, they would have seen the trap opening in front of them. It certainly remains our view that tolls are not subject to value added tax, and we are

opposed to the European Commission's view that they should be—a view that I believe is held by Commissioner Kinnock.

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11400]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Winnick: Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to congratulate the present right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) on his honesty? He said in an interview on Friday that it was most unlikely that the Government would be re-elected. Is that not the real reason why the Prime Minister is so terrified of calling the general election and clings desperately to office day by day? Does he consider it dignified to carry on to the very last moment so that he can stay at No. 10?

The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that we have the most successful economy, with the highest growth and the best inward investment record, in western Europe. None of the socialist Governments in Europe can begin to match that record, which people are understanding more and more as day succeeds day.

Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the countries that form the United Kingdom—Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—although proud entities in themselves, would count for nothing in the world as individual, separate nations? Will he therefore assure the House that his Government will never follow the lead of the Labour party in proposing constitutional changes that would lead to the break-up of this United Kingdom and provide the perfect scenario for our component countries to be nothing more than provinces in a federal Europe?

The Prime Minister: The shadow Foreign Secretary seems to think that we are heading for a Europe of the regions. I strongly disagree with that view. I believe that the United Kingdom is at its strongest while it remains united and I fear that the policies proposed by the Opposition parties—to be fair, not merely the Labour party but the Liberal Democrats as well—would lead to Scotland leaving the UK. Were that to happen, it would damage not only Scotland, but each of the other parts of the United Kingdom as well. It is a policy that should be opposed and we will oppose it.

Mr. Rooney: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 28 January. [11401]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rooney: Does the Prime Minister recall his pledge, which was apparently reiterated by the Secretary of State for Health yesterday, to phase out mixed-sex wards? What condolences will he give to my constituents


who have found that the Bradford Hospitals NHS trust has reopened and created two mixed-sex wards in the past month?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman recalls, it was this Government who, in 1995, gave patients the right to be told before admission if it was planned that they would be cared for in a mixed-sex ward. The Labour party did not seem to bother about that at all when in office. We decided to take action. We are monitoring the process. The health authorities will report back by the end of next month with individual timetable plans for separating male and female patients—timetable plans for action that the Opposition ignored for years.

Sir Roger Moate: On the vote last night on grant-maintained schools, does my right hon. Friend recall the remarks of the Labour education spokesman, who said:
I am having no truck with left-wing, middle-class parents who preach one thing and send their children to another school outside the area"?
Should we check the Division list from last night, to find out whether the Leader of the Opposition voted in his own interests or those of his party?

The Prime Minister: I cannot imagine about whom the shadow education spokesman was speaking, but I gather that there was a miscount last night and the Government were not defeated in that Division. No doubt the usual channels are sorting out the position now. What is important is not Labour's student union ambush of last night, but what it shows about Labour party policy, which is that Labour Members will enjoy choice and opportunity for themselves, but will come together as an act of policy and vote against it for people who happen not to be Labour Members of Parliament.

Mr. Loyden: Instead of spending public money on building the proposed royal yacht, will the Prime Minister consider using that money to kick-start the shipyards of this country so that our shipyard workers can get back to work to build ships in which our unemployed merchant seamen can sail?

The Prime Minister: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the decision, because the yacht will be built in a British shipyard.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the policy of being able to see league tables is greatly popular

with parents? What significance does he give to the fact that the National Association of Head Teachers recently launched a major test case to try to ensure that parents would not have that right? What significance should be attached to the fact that the barrister who vigorously prosecuted that case was the wife of the Leader of the Opposition? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House will come to order.

The Prime Minister: The important element is the official policy of the Opposition, which has been to oppose greater information for parents and league tables—to oppose each and every one of the reforms that we have produced to give children and parents better choices and parents information about schools. We believe that parents should have information about schools; the Opposition policy is that they should not.

Highlands and Islands

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to pay an official visit to the highlands and islands. [11403]

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Kennedy: That being the case, may I invite the Prime Minister to take this opportunity to explain to local people a glaring inconsistency that emerged over the weekend and that they have difficulty comprehending? Why is it that, on a £60 million contract, public money is ruled in and private finance is completely ruled out; yet, on a contract of half that value and one that is fundamental to the interests of the people of the west coast of the highlands, the Isle of Skye and, indeed, the Western Isles constituency, which is one of the lowest-income parts of the country, the public sector is completely ruled out, private finance imposed and people now face the highest toll bridge charges, not only in Europe but probably in the world, for a future generation?

The Prime Minister: The reality is that tolls on the Skye bridge are going to be no higher than ferry fares in 1995. Without the private finance initiative project, Skye would not have had the bridge for another 20 years. I note that the Liberal Democrats are opposed to using private finance. I hope that, in all the constituencies up and down the country where private finance is providing better facilities, it will be clear that the Liberal Democrats oppose those projects.

Media Comment (Madam Speaker's Statement)

Madam Speaker: I have a statement to make arising from the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) last Thursday. He contended that some parts of recent media comment on the conduct of Members gravely reflected on the good name of the House as a whole. As I hinted last Thursday, the hon. Member's remarks struck a chord with me. It is my impression that damaging comments—often highly generalised—have been common in newspapers, television and radio programmes, books and even learned articles. I believe that I owe it to the House to make some considered points of my own.
In my statement to the House on 14 October last, I said that I strongly believed that the matters under investigation should be resolved as soon as possible. Since then, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, with the enhanced resources with which he was speedily provided, as well as the Committee on Standards and Privileges, have been hard at work—work that is enormously time-consuming and painstaking—investigating the matters which stand referred to them. With the reputations of individual Members and others at stake, these investigations cannot be unduly hurried, but I repeat my view that they should be concluded at the earliest possible moment.
I should stress also that the Commissioner and the Committee are carrying out this quasi-judicial work under new arrangements which are little more than a year old. It is deplorable that many sections of the media have drawn only scant attention to the fact that, following the original work of Lord Nolan's committee, the House has made many far-reaching changes to its rules and mechanisms. The House as a whole, and I as its Speaker, are determined that these new arrangements should work effectively.
It should be noted that the first Nolan report stated:
The great majority of men and women in British public life are honest and hard-working, and observe high ethical standards".
After a lifetime's experience in politics and nearly a quarter of a century as a Member of this House, I know that to be true. Members of this House have a responsibility to conduct themselves according to the high standards which the electorate rightly expect of them. The overwhelming majority of Members do so.
There can be no complaint about the role of the media in identifying cases where it appears that Members have fallen short of those standards. Indeed, in so doing, the media perform a public service. But it is reasonable to expect that the media do not repeat and pursue allegations in a way that prejudges their validity pending the outcome of investigations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, to whom any new genuinely new evidence should be sent. Above all, they should not use individual allegations as the occasion for making highly generalised and unsubstantiated comments against Members of this House as a whole and against our parliamentary system.
The Nolan committee's first report also stated:
We would prefer more acknowledgement from the media that the overwhelming majority of public servants work hard and have high standards. We would prefer more recognition of the value of our democratic mechanisms and the dangers of undermining them.
Again, I agree. It can hardly be a coincidence that it is to this House, above all others, that parliamentarians from all over the world come for consultations and advice.
I am determined that the new procedures and rules that the House has established should work in such a way as to bolster our democratic system. The media can play their part with fairer and better balanced coverage and comment. I also look to hon. Members in all parts of the House for constructive support for this historic institution to which our constituents have sent us, and which all of us have the honour to serve.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Thank you for your statement, Madam Speaker.

Airports and Aerodromes (Noise)

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control the level of aircraft noise at airports and aerodromes; and for connected purposes.
This is a modest Bill which responds to concerns about noise levels expressed by those who live near airports. It cannot be a substitute for Government regulations, which many hon. Members have pressed the Government to introduce. The Bill is about research.
Governments across Europe are concerned about the effects of noise pollution. Aircraft landings and take-offs cause the greatest amount of noise—and at some airports there are landings every two to three minutes. The impact of aircraft engine emissions on the environment and on health should not be underestimated. Many residents complain of ill health, which they attribute to living near an airport or under a flight path. The disturbance to residents caused by night-time flying is well documented. Night-time flying is one of the most obvious causes of noise pollution—many hon. Members receive regular correspondence on that subject—and can cause a great deal of disturbance and inconvenience to sleeping residents.
This Bill enables the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out research into, first, the use of hushkits; and, secondly, technology, including aircraft computers and so on. As well as examining ways of making hushkits more effective, it is important to conduct research into alternative forms of noise reduction.
In order to enable older aircraft to meet the chapter 2 standards, it was necessary to fit them with engine mufflers known as hushkits. They are relatively inexpensive, but they do not reduce the level of chemical emissions from aircraft engines. There is also a growing feeling in aviation that hushkits will not, by themselves, produce a satisfactory reduction in noise pollution.
Many aircraft that are currently classed as chapter 2 will be upgraded to chapter 3 by fitting them with hushkits. Unfortunately, many of the hushkits will provide

only the bare minimum of noise reduction that is required in order to satisfy chapter 3 rules, while some of the new generation of aircraft are so far inside the restrictions that it almost makes a mockery of those rules.
Luton airport is currently developing a new computer system for aircraft that will enable pilots to monitor the level and direction of an aircraft's noise emissions, and allow them to alter the flight path so as to reduce the impact on residential areas.
Some companies replace old engines with modern ones which not only reduce noise pollution more effectively, but cut the amount of chemicals emitted. However, the fitting of new engines is more costly, and many companies prefer to use the cheaper hushkits. There is a significant difference between the level of emissions produced by planes that simply have hushkits fitted, and planes that have new engines. That has been acknowledged by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Transport.
The Bill has two aims: first, to raise the basic level of chapter 3 standards, and secondly, to encourage new research to be carried out by the CAA and the Department of Transport into ways of reducing noise pollution.
It must be stressed that the Bill is a short-term measure only, designed to alleviate some of the problems that residents living near Britain's small airports face day and night from older aircraft with poor noise pollution controls. It is not and should not be a substitute for a Government Bill to deal with the problems of noise pollution around all Britain's airports.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jim Cunningham, Mr. Brian David Jenkins, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. John Butcher, Mr. Robert Ainsworth, Mr. Jon Trickett, Mr. Stephen Timms, Mr. Jimmy Wray, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. Geoffrey Robinson and Sir Dudley Smith.

AIRPORTS AND AERODROMES (NOISE)

Mr. Jim Cunningham accordingly presented a Bill to control the level of aircraft noise at airports and aerodromes; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 83].

Orders of the Day — Education Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Government have had the opportunity overnight to consider the enormity of the loss last night of new clause 3 and its impact on the rest of the Bill, and the Clerks of the House have had a chance to ponder the ramifications of that loss. I seek your guidance again today on the effect that the loss of the new clause will have on clause 6 and paragraph 22 of schedule 9, both of which refer specifically to new section 259A of the Education Act 1996, which was struck out by the House last night. Other clauses, including clause 5, refer to the enlargement of premises, and one might reasonably argue that they, too, are impacted upon by the removal of new section 259A.

Madam Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am sure that he will understand that it is not for the Chair to take any action in the matter—that is entirely for the Government, whose legislation it is. The hon. Gentleman may well have heard that, during Prime Minister's Question Time, the matter was raised with the Prime Minister, who left the impression with the House that he believed that it was now being discussed with the usual channels. Certainly, it is not a matter for me at this stage. No doubt we shall hear more about it later.

Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last night there seems to have been some confusion about the vote. There have been reports on the media today that the vote was other than as recorded in Hansard. Last night, I voted according to my principles and my conscience. Can you tell me why the Leader of the Opposition was not in the same Lobby as I was?

Madam Speaker: That is barely a point of order. No arguments. We have dealt with that. It is over and done with. Let us move on to the Bill, and take positive action with new clause 10.

New clause 10

GENERAL TEACHING COUNCIL

'( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a body to be known as the General Teaching Council for England and Wales.
(2) A body established under this section shall have the functions of advising the Secretary of State as to the following—

(a) rules and guidance as to the professional conduct and discipline of teachers:
(b) the qualifications to be required of persons seeking to become or remain teachers:
(c) the professional development and appraisal of teachers:
(d) such matters, including matters relating to education or the employment of teachers or other persons connected with

education as the Council may consider relevant to the promotion of good teaching in England and Wales; and
(e) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant.'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee, there was general agreement on the need to raise educational standards by improving the quality of work of individual classroom teachers. The Minister conceded that a general teaching council could make a contribution to raising the morale and status of the teaching profession. He raised a number of quibbles, which could easily be dealt with.
First, the Minister asked whether, given the widespread support for such a body, it needed to be set up by statute. The answer is clearly in the affirmative, for reasons that flow from the nature of the organisation and its necessary status and functions. If it is to police professional conduct and discipline, it must have universal coverage and the ability to apply sanctions. If it is to discharge its duty effectively, there can be no opportunity for the small number of teachers who may be subject to discipline to avoid it simply by opting out of the organisation.
There are already a number of professional associations that teachers can join on a voluntary basis. Although those bodies do much good work to promote better professional standards, they exist primarily to protect the interests of their members—long may that continue. It is significant that the teacher associations strongly support the establishment of a statutory general teaching council. They recognise that it would have to be a fundamentally different organisation.
There is already a voluntary GTC, which exists to promote the creation of a statutory general teaching council. It is widely supported by organisations representing teachers, their employers and the wider community. They recognise that their objectives cannot be achieved by an expansion of voluntary activity.
In Committee, the Minister asked whether the general teaching council would require public subsidy. The answer is emphatically no. That would be not only unnecessary but undesirable. Independent funding would help to guarantee the independence of the body.
There are approximately 500,000 teachers in Britain. If they were all required to pay a registration fee of just a few pounds a year, the GTC would quickly achieve an adequate budget for its relatively modest costs. The universal requirement for teachers to register would simultaneously keep the fee low and ensure that the organisation remained independent of Government, without resorting to mass voluntary membership. It could thereby be both professionally independent and rigorous on standards. That is another reason why it would require a statutory basis. Teachers have made it clear that they would willingly subscribe the small registration fee necessary for the benefits that would accrue—as they do in Scotland.
In Committee, the Minister asked how the general teaching council would relate to the Teacher Training Agency. A general teaching council would encroach on the territory of the Teacher Training Agency, but its role would be complementary rather than one of substitution. The Teacher Training Agency is charged with spending


public money on the recruitment, initial training and continuing professional development of teachers—a vital function. Since its inception, it has quite properly conducted wide consultation.
The general teaching council emphatically would not be a creature of Government and would not be concerned with spending decisions, but it would be an extremely useful source of consultation and would provide a mechanism for the dissemination of ideas and good practice throughout the teaching profession. It would also have sufficient breadth and legitimacy through its broad representation to gain respect for its work in upholding professional standards that a small appointed body, however well managed, would be hard pressed to emulate.
Finally, in Committee the Minister said that the general teaching council was an idea that had found its time, and he acknowledged that it had merit. However, he was worried about certain difficulties that he felt needed to be resolved before the matter could progress.
There may be matters of detail to be resolved, but new clause 10 deals only with the broad principle, which the Minister accepts. It will be for the Secretary of State—hope, a Labour Secretary of State—to determine its implementation. There are no serious obstacles. The proposal has greater support and fewer intrinsic problems than almost any of the educational innovations that the Government have forced through in recent years.
Why is the Minister so easily discouraged by such trivial difficulties? The truth is that he is not, and nor is the Secretary of State. According to a splash exclusive by Mr. Chris McLaughlin and Ms Alison Brace in The Mail on Sunday, a once-removed organ of the Conservative party, the centrepiece of education policy for the Conservative Government, if they were fortunate enough to win the next election, would be—surprise, surprise—a general teaching council. There has been a metamorphosis in attitudes if that is the true direction of Conservative party policy, because in 1993 the Government voted against the establishment of a general teaching council. We welcomed the Minister's semi-Pauline conversion in Committee towards the principle of a general teaching council.
The hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), Chairman of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, is also very much involved, and I believe that he will attempt to catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, to put a specific perspective on the notion of a GTC.
We make a very simple offer to the Government. If there is only a smidgen of truth in the story that was published as an exclusive in The Mail on Sunday—if, as I believe he does, the Chairman of the Select Committee represents the consensus that exists in the House on this vital issue for the further professionalisation of teaching—there is a very simple solution. That is for the Government to accept today the new clause, which we tabled in Committee and withdrew.
Whatever objections needed to be accommodated or changes made, we would be willing to meet in a cross-party consensus, which I believe exists among most Members of the House on the need for a general teaching council. We would meet the Government on that, and we would support those necessary, perhaps technical, amendments when the Bill went to another place. There will be no problem if there is agreement on principle.

Mr. Nigel Forman: I am seeking to follow the hon. Gentleman's arguments

closely. Will he enlighten the House as to whether, at present, the teaching profession is the only liberal profession—if I may call it that—that has no professional council of this type, and, if that is the case, what does he believe is the historical reason for that?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I believe that it is the case, but I cannot be 100 per cent. sure—I am not an expert on other professional organisations. My experience as an ex-teacher is that, for a very long time, there has been a claim in the profession for such an organisation to represent teachers as a profession. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in 1918, a teachers registration council was set up, which fell by the wayside mainly because it was a voluntary organisation, which one had to subscribe to. It was not the type of organisation that we envisage today.
Regardless of history, if the Minister was right—I believe he was—in Committee when he said that this was an idea whose time had come, I believe that there may be cross-party agreement that could ensure that the measure was passed smoothly, with great expedition. I dare say that views are held on both sides of the House suggesting that that might not be as easily accomplished as I might like to hope, but at least we could establish the principle.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, and I accept that the reason why we do not have a GTC now is that the Government have continuously opposed it, at least since I entered the House in 1987.
I fully support a GTC, but I have a specific question to ask. Subsection (2)(a) of new clause 10 mentions
rules and guidance as to the professional conduct and discipline of teachers".
Will my hon. Friend enlighten us about that? I would not want a general teaching council to become the watchdog of the teaching profession, and be obliged to take disciplinary action against its own members. If that were the intention of the new clause, I should be very worried.

Mr. Kilfoyle: There is absolutely no intention to subvert the legitimate rights of individual teachers to seek the support, for example, of their professional associations—quite the reverse. One of the objects of establishing a GTC is to ensure that professionalism is maintained. There may be ambiguities or uncertainties in the new clause. Our offer to proceed on the basis of a cross-party consensus is made on the understanding that we can then establish where there may be loopholes in the clause as it stands. We ask the Government to accept adjustments to the clause in another place.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I think that everyone in the House will be familiar with my support for a general teaching council, support that predates my entry to this place, and has remained consistent ever since. In the report of the Select Committee on Education and Employment in 1990 there were references to past recommendations for a GTC. The Committee referred to a
century of aspiration followed by a generation of disappointed initiatives.
That shows that the idea of a GTC is by no means new. Indeed, the idea has been around for 100 years. As I wrote in an article that appeared in The House Magazine, I believe that the council's time has come. It is important to reflect on why that is so.
Why has it not been possible to establish a GTC? One reason was insufficient unanimity among those who wished to form a GTC. That very dissension among those whom a GTC should have united was one of the early stumbling blocks. To a great extent, that dissension no longer exists, but it is present to some extent.
The House will know that I have exercised my right in the ballot of private Members to introduce a Bill that would, if enacted, lead to the introduction of a general teaching council. I have in my hand the Bill as published. The Bill would move us far away from the broad principles that are set out in the new clause. However, as I have made abundantly clear to right hon. and hon. Members, including Ministers, to the supporting forum, and to those who have agreed to sponsor the Bill—two sponsors are in the Chamber—the measure represents an attempt to establish a principle. We do not intend to push it towards enactment within this Parliament. There are good reasons for saying that.
It is perhaps important to reflect upon those things that have changed. A unique blend of people involved in education support the principle of a GTC. They are members of the supporting forum. Thirty-two organisations believe in the principle and recognise the value that the establishment of a GTC would have for the teaching profession. Over the years, every opinion poll has shown that teachers feel strongly about a perceived lack of esteem for the profession. Many of us who work in education feel that teachers deserve esteem, and that it is long overdue. That is the underpinning of my support for a GTC.
There is a unique alliance. As I wrote in an article with which right hon. and hon. Members will be familiar, it answers completely the Government's requirement of 1991 that a GTC should be one that
emanates from, rather than is imposed on, the teaching profession.
This emanates from the teaching profession, teacher associations, higher and further education and all who are involved in education in any way. All their shoulders are behind the wheel.

Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend's words of wisdom are well worth heeding. He mentioned higher and further education. Does that imply that, in his mind, if such a council were to exist in future, it would include teachers in higher and further education, or would it be confined to teachers in schools?

4 pm

Sir Malcolm Thornton: My hon. Friend raises an important point. At this stage, there should not be over-prescription. The problem that my hon. Friend seeks to address is an outstanding issue and has still not been decided by the forum. It is the will of the people who work in those two important sectors to be part of the overall concept of a general teaching council. The council's remit would reflect the wider aspects of teaching and learning, and the way in which the whole teaching profession presents itself. Those matters still need to be discussed.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Since I qualified as a teacher, I have supported the principle of

a teaching council and the concept of teaching as a profession dedicated to the community and to the future of our society. In that respect, teachers are public servants. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a difficulty may arise if local authorities—in the old sense—disappeared and were not the employers and inspectors, and therefore not the administrators of local standards, with responsibility for the local public? Should not that matter be taken into account when considering the pros and cons of such bodies?

Sir Malcolm Thornton: Clearly, everyone who is involved in the oversight of education and is quite properly concerned about standards must have a say and a stake. That is very important. I do not believe that the role of a general teaching council and whatever role is envisaged for local education authorities are necessarily mutually exclusive: they should be complementary.
It is also important to say clearly at this stage what a general teaching council is not and should not be. It is not some sort of super-union. It would not have any responsibility for negotiating pay and conditions, which would remain firmly in the hands of individual teaching unions, and would be the ultimate responsibility of the pay review body. The council is about setting standards, and ensuring that those who are called to what I believe is an honourable profession are represented at national level.
The aim of my private Member's Bill was merely to establish the principle. I fear that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) is pushing us a little too far. The forum—the people who have pursued this matter for many years—is not yet ready to determine the way in which a general teaching council would operate. The Bill—which I described as a full set of measures—is an attempt to deal with certain issues in considerable detail, and those issues could properly be considered by a future general teaching council. When I and some of my hon. Friends who support the Bill met representatives of the forum, it was forcefully brought to our attention that some matters are still to be considered.
We should say clearly that it is the will of the House to establish a general teaching council. The hon. Member for Walton made that clear, and I welcome the fact that such a consensus has emerged. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for an assurance that the Government are prepared to consider granting the statutory status that I believe to be essential if the council is to command the support that it needs to command.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us a little further? What immediate difficulties and obstacles does he consider to lie in the path of the establishment of an effective and efficient general teaching council which could not be dealt with, given the support, help and encouragement of the Government of the day? Can such problems be addressed only in the fulness of time, or are there ways in which they could be speedily circumvented?

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to ask, but in all honesty I cannot give him a specific answer, because the details were raised only peripherally with my colleagues and me during our discussions.
The first essential underpinning of the council, however—in this connection, I note what my hon. Friend the Minister said in Committee—must be unanimity, and


agreement between it and existing professional organisations. That would provide an upward thrust which I believe the House of Commons, and indeed the other place, would find it difficult, if not impossible, to resist, and should not in any event wish to resist.
It is, I think, accepted that a general teaching council will not be established overnight. It will probably take the council at least three years to evolve, and to find requisite and acceptable methods for the election or appointment of teachers, who will have a major part to play as members of the body. Other questions are still outstanding, such as what other members there should be and how they should be elected.

Mr. Steinberg: I thank my hon. Friend—for I have been working along with him for so long that I now regard him as such. He has spoken of all-party consensus. Does he envisage a leading role and a majority say for the teaching profession on the governing body of the council?

Sir Malcolm Thornton: If it is indeed to be a general teaching council, I do not see how it could function in any other way. I am grateful to my hon. Friend—if I may call him that, as a fellow member of the Select Committee—for his opening comments. For many years, the Select Committee has demonstrated the way in which it is possible to unite behind a principle whose benefits can be envisaged.
The hon. Member for Walton drew attention to elements of the new clause relating to discipline. Those are matters of detail, but of important, significant detail.
I hope that the debate will generate the realisation—and a message to that effect, which the House can send those outside—that the time has come to establish a general teaching council, and that the will for it to be given a fair wind exists in all parties. Members of the forum, who have worked tirelessly, and with belief in what they are doing, for many years should understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House are saying, "Get on with it; present detailed proposals. Then we can enter into serious negotiation." I believe that that can happen.
I want specific legislation, early in the new Parliament, to give effect to these proposals, and to provide the teaching profession with the representation and, above all, the esteem that it needs and deserves.

Mr. Don Foster: I am absolutely delighted to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), whose involvement in the issue and whose concern for it is well known by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I agree with the vast majority of what he says, but I come to a different conclusion.
There is considerable support among hon. Members on both sides of the House for raising standards in our education system. There is a genuine acceptance that we can do that only if we have highly dedicated, highly skilled and appropriately qualified teachers who are enthusiastic about their work. Unfortunately, many teachers are bowed down by the constantly changing demands that are made of them, the increased pressure, the lack of resources to support them in their work, and the poor state of the buildings in which many of them have to operate. As a result of those pressures, sadly, many teachers—about four out of five—are leaving the profession before retirement age.
As we know, the Government's response to that has been to introduce overhasty changes to the teachers' pension arrangement. Some such changes might be needed, but it is equally important that the Government should have considered why so many teachers are leaving the profession, and should have begun to try to deal with those concerns.
If we are to improve the status of teachers, so that not so many leave and so that we can re-enthuse the profession, we need to ensure not only that they are given the tools to do the job and opportunities for high-quality service or continuing professional development, but, perhaps above all, that we truly raise the profession's status, so that teaching can again be considered a highly valued profession. Perhaps the best way of doing that is to ensure that the profession has its own professional body: a general teaching council.
Like the hon. Member for Crosby, I do not believe that the new clause goes far enough to establish the sort of general teaching council that I want. Like the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), I want to make it clear that the council will be led by the profession. I want to go further than I suspect the hon. Gentleman wants to go, and ensure that the council will control entry into the profession and be responsible for removing people from it if they do not meet high standards, but the new clause does not deal with any of those matters. It sets up a body that is purely consultative, but its final paragraph contains the option—the opportunity—to build on such a body.
The hon. Member for Crosby said that the time for a general teaching council had come. I agree and we need to take action now to show the teaching profession that we truly value it. It would be appropriate to establish the general teaching council in the limited form proposed in the new clause and later, through subsequent legislation, to add measures that I know many hon. Members would like to introduce. Therefore, I urge the hon. Member for Crosby and his hon. Friends to consider whether it would be sensible to make a start today and to accept the new clause.

Mr. Forman: I have listened carefully to the speeches made so far and have sought to clear my mind a little on some of the ideas that have been put forward.
I am prepared to accept that my hon. Friend the Minister of State might argue that the Bill is neither the place nor the best legislative vehicle through which to introduce such a measure. None the less, not having had the benefit of attending debates in Committee, I think that it would help the House and those who follow these debates if my hon. Friend could find a brief way of summarising the Government's reservations about the proposal. I, for one, think that, in principle, it is a good idea. It is probably long overdue from the professionals' point of view. Above all, such an initiative could remoralise rather than demoralise the teaching profession, which is urgently necessary for reasons that will be familiar to the House.
The first intervention made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) was, if I may say so, not of the best. If one is to have a valid general teaching council that does all the things that a real profession would expect of such a body, it is absolutely essential that


it should have real influence and power in the spheres of disciplinary action, professional standards and the rest. He has simply to draw a parallel with, say, the General Medical Council, the Bar Council or the Law Society to see the force of that argument. The teaching profession is every bit as important as the medical and legal professions and should have in its realm a professional council that is as prestigious and useful to its status as the other bodies to which I referred.

Mr. Steinberg: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, but what worries me is that such a body would become the profession's disciplinary watchdog. I personally would not want it to go down that line. I believe that present mechanisms adequately cater for bad teachers, and there are disciplinary measures in schools and local authorities. I would not want a specific watchdog to be set up as the be all and end all of discipline in our education system. That would be going down the wrong path.

Mr. Forman: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, the essence of most professions is that they make themselves freely and willingly responsible for standards, discipline and status in their professional sphere. It would therefore be a little odd if the teaching profession, which is a noble and long-standing one, were a large exception to that general rule.
One point that arises from my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) is that, if the body were brought into being, its remit should be confined to those who teach in schools. There is something very distinctive about school teaching that merits the uplift and extra esteem that the device could introduce. I should be a little wary about extending it into the sphere of further or higher education.
Bearing in mind what hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, I entirely agree that, for such a body to be a success, it is important that it commands in advance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said, virtually universal agreement and support among those who would fall under its remit. I am gratified to learn that, through the auspices of the forum to which my hon. Friend referred, that is the direction in which things are moving.
Such institutional measures, which are after all intended to last for decades, if not centuries, are best if they can be removed from any temptation to engage in party political squabble. The model of the Dealing committee—in which we are approaching some of the thorny issues of further and higher education under the auspices of the great, good and wise Sir Ron Dealing—should be borne in mind when debating such a measure, which for reasons that still elude me, has not been brought to fruition over all the years since it was first mooted.
I look forward to my hon. Friend the Minister's speech. I say to him and the House that it is about time that we got on with this rather good idea, even if we can make progress only in principle.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: In considering new clause 10, I should like only to express—in a non-carping manner—my surprise and disappointment that it provides for a general teaching

council for a unit known as "England and Wales". One persistent irritation of being Welsh is that one consistently finds that political decisions about one's country are made within that type of framework and with the use of the phrase "England and Wales". There is such a thing as "Scotland", and there is such a thing as "Northern Ireland", but then there is something called "England and Wales". It reminds one a bit of "Sam'n Eric" in "Lord of the Flies"—except that that phrase denoted two equal individuals making one whole, whereas I do not believe that anyone regards "England and Wales" as a union of two equals.
Plaid Cymru and I favour a significantly distinct approach in many aspects of education policy in Wales, and specifically in mechanisms to maintain and raise standards. We sincerely believe that, over the past decade and more, many of the Government's reforms have been largely irrelevant to Wales. Although some of the reforms have been damaging, many of them, at best, have been merely irrelevant. That is why we are in favour of a radically different approach. We propose a parliament for Wales, which would have the power to design radically different proposals.
New clause 10 has been tabled by Labour Front Benchers—one of whom is the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who supports Labour's policy of establishing an assembly in Wales. A consistent claim has been that, although it would not have primary legislative powers, such an assembly would enable the development of distinct policies for Wales. I have received assurances from Labour Front Benchers that their Welsh Assembly would be able to pursue significantly different policies in Wales. It therefore seems very strange that we are now considering a general teaching council—a very significant body—for "England and Wales", and not for Wales and for England.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the hon. Gentleman's discussions with the Labour party, has it pledged any money to those "significantly different" organisations?

Mr. Dafis: No, we have not got round to discussing pounds, shillings and pence—or pounds and pence, or whatever we have these days. However, I have been given the impression that Labour envisages that its assembly in Wales will have power to do something significantly different.
We do not have to think about the future when we discuss such organisations, because there are already many separate and distinct institutions in Wales, some of which were created by the Conservative Government. Although the Welsh Joint Education Committee was established just after the second world war, the Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales was created by the Government, and all praise to them for that. Wales also has its own inspectorate, which works within the Welsh Office, and the Welsh Language Board has responsibilities for education in Wales.
By establishing those bodies, the Conservatives have recognised the distinctive Welsh education tradition. It is ironic that the tradition has not been recognised by those who tabled new clause 10—who belong to a party that wishes to enhance further the Welsh dimension by establishing a democratically elected body in Wales.
My comments are not intended to criticise Labour Front Benchers, but are intended to gain an assurance that after the Bill sinks without trace—as is likely at some stage in its passage—they will seriously examine the unquestionable need for a general teaching council for Wales. The fact that the new clause does not include that principle does not close the door on the possibility of creating such a council in future.
We know of the Labour party's intention to introduce a Bill on education as a priority after the election. I expect that Bill to be framed in such a way as to facilitate a distinctive Welsh approach to education. If that Bill makes provision for a general teaching council, it will be unacceptable for it to make no provision for a body for Wales.

The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): This important debate has raised several points, not least of which is a paradox apparent in what has been said by almost all those who have spoken. Everyone has agreed that there is widespread support among teachers for the idea of a general teaching council. The word "unanimous" has been used several times. I am always slightly wary of that word, particularly when we are talking about nearly half a million people, but I am prepared to accept the belief of all those who have spoken—not least my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman)—that there is widespread, nay overwhelming, support among teachers for some form of general teaching council. That appears to be a widespread view in the House today.
The argument continues—I have a little difficulty with this—that the creation by teachers of a general teaching council would raise the esteem in which they are held. Hon. Members have mentioned the General Medical Council and the Law Society. I am not sure whether the existence of the Law Society in itself means that we all respect solicitors. My own dear wife is a solicitor and an attorney at law, so she is pretty heavily legally qualified, but I do not know whether she would urge me to say that mere membership of the Law Society means that she is automatically held in esteem by everybody who meets her and deals with her.

Mr. Forman: My hon. Friend is in danger of misunderstanding the argument put to him by hon. Members on both sides. We have said that the measure might help. It would be a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition to raise the esteem of the teaching profession in the eyes of the public and would help to remoralise the teaching profession. That is an important point. My hon. Friend should not exaggerate his counter point. We were merely saying that the measure would be one contribution.

Mr. Forth: That is a helpful point, which I shall come to in a moment. What my hon. Friend said depends on further conditions being met. In any case, let us suppose that a council might make a contribution of the kind that is sought. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby pointed out, there are still other matters to be resolved.
That brings us to what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said. He started out bravely and at some pace, saying that of course it was obvious that we needed a statutory basis. He said that the reasons were—

I made a note of the words that he used and I think that I am quoting him accurately—to "police the conduct of teachers" and to "apply sanctions".
That sits oddly with the fact that the new clause does not mention anything of the kind. It refers to a body advising the Secretary of State on matters similar to those that I have just mentioned. This is at the heart of the points raised several times by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg). Would the body seek to usurp or replace the functions carried out variously by the Teacher Training Agency, the Department for Education and Employment and others, or would it only advise? We need to be clear on that before proceeding.
The argument of the hon. Member for Walton was inconsistent. He claimed to have resolved all the questions that I raised in Committee, but we have run into difficulty straight away. On the one hand, the new clause says that the proposed body would "advise" but, on the other, the hon. Gentleman says that the body needs a statutory basis so that it can "police the conduct of teachers" and "apply sanctions" where necessary.
On funding, the hon. Member for Walton was good enough to point out that he certainly had no intention of involving public subsidy. If I remember rightly, that is slightly at odds with the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, which at least provided for public moneys to be made available—partly on an up-front and temporary basis, but I think that there was the possibility of on-going public funding.
The hon. Member for Walton said that there would be a universal registration fee to be paid by all teachers. If there is so much support and enthusiasm among teachers for the idea, I wonder whether that would be necessary. He also said that teachers would willingly subscribe, presumably a modest amount, to carry the enterprise forward.
People who have from time to time accused me of a certain cynicism will not be surprised if I say that, had there been so much enthusiasm for the proposed body, and for so long—as many hon. Members have claimed—is it not odd that, despite all their ingenuity and commitment, they have not been able to make their case more strongly up to now? Is it not at least possible that there is still sufficient disagreement on some of the fundamentals to have held back the enterprise thus far?
4.30 pm
That brings me to some of the more important remaining problems, which will allow me partly to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington a moment ago. The matter of the composition of the proposed body has not yet been tackled; I think that it was touched on in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby but not resolved, and we all understand why. Would the body comprise, as the hon. Member for City of Durham said, a majority of teachers? That question is probably fairly easily resolved: most would say that a general teaching council should almost certainly comprise a majority of teachers, but that brings us to the crucial issue of representation and, in turn, the method whereby the members would be appointed. Would they be appointed by election, appointment or invitation? What would be the relationship between this body and the teacher unions?
I know that some teacher unions have reservations about the composition of the body and its relationship with them. Were we to follow the model outlined by the hon. Member for Walton, that body would have the power to "police" and "apply sanctions", and would thus have a direct influence on the members of existing unions. Those are crucial issues, and I am not sure that they are capable of being resolved quickly or fully enough to allow us with confidence to accept the hon. Gentleman's proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby was typically much closer to the mark in his analysis. His Bill took a more cautious approach, because he recognised that many important questions had yet to be answered.
One way forward would be to accept a statutory trial and then fill in the gaps later, but that is probably a dangerous and undesirable approach. I was rather intrigued by the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby that we should adopt something like a Dealing approach: we would say to a group of respected people, "Here is an idea that has widespread support; let's see whether we can resolve some of the important problems, and get sufficient acknowledgment of where the body should be heading and what its role should be, and then see whether it requires a statutory basis." There may be considerable promise in that approach, and it is one to which we should pay some attention. The answer to whether we shall consider the matter further is yes. Given my hon. Friend's Bill and the support expressed in the House today, the proposal certainly merits further, urgent and serious study by those who have expressed interest in it.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) raised the question whether there should be one body for England and Wales or separate ones. That is a legitimate question, given—as he rightly said—that we have acknowledged many times and in many different ways the distinctiveness of Wales, not least in education. That is another question that deserves attention and consideration.
Although I believe that progress has been made, not least through the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby, which enabled us to focus much more on the issue than might have been the case in the past, I still have sufficient doubts about the desirability of new clause 10 to be unable to recommend it to the House. I hope that the House will not be persuaded that we should add the new clause to the Bill, with all the questions that we have identified left unanswered. That would be unwise. Were we to have a general teaching council, it would be a better one if we were to pause at this stage and make a serious attempt to answer some of the unanswered questions. We could then return to the subject with fuller answers.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I was taken by the contribution by the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), who has a long and honourable tradition of support for the concept of a general teaching council. I know that he has genuine differences with us about the difficulties that we would face in trying to implement a general teaching council, but when he was asked about ways in which the obstacles that he foresees could be circumvented, he was unsure. I think that he said that he did not know and that that would be a matter for some deliberation. If I understood him

correctly, he also said that it would take at least three years for the notion of the general teaching council to evolve into its correct role.
The hon. Member for Crosby made an important point about the need for unanimity among the different professional groups involved. With his long and illustrious involvement in education, he will recognise that one of the more quixotic elements of education policy making is the need to consider the many and various differences of opinion—many of which would be expressed about a proposed general teaching council. Sometimes one has to have a bit of vision to supersede the various legitimate rivalries within the profession. The hon. Gentleman also made the essential point, with which I am sure we all agree, that a general teaching council is a sine qua non for raising the morale and status of teachers. That point was reinforced by broad support from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), who also made a telling comment about the need to remove the issue from party political squabble. I shall return to that point.
I do not wish to touch on the political sensitivities of Wales, which were raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). Suffice it to say that it is as important to establish the principle of a general teaching council for people in Wales as it is for those in England.

Mr. Roy Beggs: If a decision is made that it is in the best interests of the profession to have a general teaching council for Wales and England, surely Scotland and Northern Ireland deserve the same treatment.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree that if the principle is good, it should be universally applied; I understand that such a body currently exists in Scotland.

Mr. Win Griffiths: For the sake of clarification, may I point out to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) that the Labour party's policy document for Wales states that, in all probability, there would be a separation after the Welsh Assembly had been created, but in the meantime we wish to set down the principle of a general teaching council for England and Wales?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am grateful for that constructive intervention and I shall not follow the Welsh issue further.
I shall move on to the comments made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who said that he and his party would ultimately go much further in defining the remit of a general teaching council—many hon. Members might agree with him. The important point is that the council should be allowed to reach the evolutionary stage to which the hon. Member for Crosby referred, and to develop professionally, with the full involvement of all its members.
I understand the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) about the council's role vis-à-vis the professional responsibilities of individual teachers. The sometimes onerous responsibilities of the professional associations and trade unions must also have been at the back of his mind. That is why I repeat to the Minister that we would fully support


any proposals from the Government that might cater for those issues. The new clause merely provides powers to the Secretary of State to set up a general teaching council as he or she may see fit.
The Minister spoke about the widespread support for the idea and asked whether it would raise the esteem in which the profession was held. I refer him again to the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. The measure is one of a package that would go some way towards restoring the morale and esteem of teachers, which have been sorely dented in recent years by the depredations of the Government and their agents, who have set out deliberately to undermine the standing of teachers in the community. We feel that the new clause would be a small step towards restoring the balance.
The Minister asked why, if there was such enthusiasm for the idea in all sectors of education, the general teaching council had not yet taken off. He should know, because he was a virulent opponent of such a council. No succour has been offered to those who want to establish it—except by Opposition Members.
The Minister dons his conciliatory hat on the crucial question of the Dealing approach. He uses that as a smokescreen, simply because of the Government policy set out in the article to which I referred, in The Mail on Sunday. He looked bemused when I spoke about that policy; but the Secretary of State and Ministers are quoted in the article. Unless The Mail on Sunday completely fabricates quotations, the word has certainly gone out that the Government intend the council to be a plank in their education policy at the general election.
The Minister does not want to consider the new clause because the Government want to steal the credit for the idea at the general election, although they have a long history of opposing the establishment of a general teaching council.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: The heartening point that has emerged from the debate is that there is clear support for the principle of a general teaching council. There is some disagreement, as expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister, about whether it should be a statutory body. I believe, for powerful and long-standing reasons, that it should be. We have had a good debate, because there is clear agreement about what the teaching profession needs. The idea is driven by the support from below, but supported by the political umbrella above. That message should go out loud and clear from the House today, and I would not want—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. This is turning into a mini-speech.

Sir Malcolm Thornton: I shall be brief.

Madam Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Member has finished.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I do not want to claim prescience about what the hon. Gentleman was about to say, but I assume that it was a cri de coeur for a bipartisan approach to the issue, asking that we should not vote on it today. I do not doubt his sincerity, which is recognised by all right hon. and hon. Members, but I also do not doubt the fact that

there is a political issue at stake. We have a party in government that refuses to acknowledge that a general teaching council is of itself a good thing.
The Minister can make all the noises that he likes, but he has done no more than to express doubt about whether our proposal represents the most efficacious way of establishing a council. He said that a general teaching council had never been established, despite the overwhelming support throughout the teaching profession. We are offering the Minister and the Government the opportunity to test that support and to propose in the House of Lords whatever changes he and the Secretary of State consider appropriate. We are promising support for the Government, as long as we get the general teaching council on the statute book.

Mr. Dafis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kilfoyle: No, I will not.
There is no turning back, and everyone involved should move forward with an idea that, to use the words of the hon. Member for Crosby, has met its time. We therefore intend to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 298.

Division No. 54]
[4.45 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ainger, Nick
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Connarty, Michael


Alton, David
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Corbett, Robin


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ashton, Joseph
Cousins, Jim


Austin-Walker, John
Cox, Tom


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bames, Harry
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Dr John


Battle, John
Dafis, Cynog


Beith, A J
Dalyell, Tam


Benn, Tony
Darling, Alistair


Bennett, Andrew F
Davidson, Ian


Benton, Joe
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Berry, Roger
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Betts, Clive
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Blair, Tony
Denham, John


Blunkett, David
Dewar, Donald


Boateng, Paul
Dixon, Don


Bradley, Keith
Dobson, Frank


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Donohoe, Brian H


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Eastham, Ken


Burden, Richard
Ennis, Jeff


Caborn, Richard
Etherington, Bill


Callaghan, Jim
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fatchett, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Faulds, Andrew


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foulkes, George


Chidgey, David
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Chisholm, Malcolm
Galbraith, Sam


Clapham, Michael
Galloway, George


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gapes, Mike


Clelland, David
Garrett, John






George, Bruce
Marek, Dr John


Gerard, Neil
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gilbert, Dr John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Martlew, Eric


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Maxton, John


Graham, Thomas
Meacher, Michael


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Michael, Alun


Grocott, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Gunnell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hall, Mike
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Morgan, Rhodri


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Harvey, Nick
Mudie, George


Hattersley, Roy
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Steatham)
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Hinchliffe, David
Oakes, Gordon


Hodge, Ms Margaret
O'Brien, Mike (N Walks)


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, Bill


Home Robertson, John
O'Neill, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Stanley


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pearson, Ian


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Howells, Dr Kim
Pike, Peter L


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Illsley, Eric
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Ingram, Adam
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rendel, David


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Rowlands, Ted


Kaufman, Gerald
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Keen, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Sheldon, Robert


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Shore, Peter


Khabra, Piara S
Short, Clare


Kilfoyle, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Snape, Peter


Litherland, Robert
Soley, Clive


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Spearing, Nigel


Llwyd, Elfyn
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Loyden, Eddie
Steel, Sir David


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum
Strang, Dr Gavin


McFall, John
Straw, Jack


McKelvey, William
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


MacShane, Denis
Thurnham, Peter


McWilliam, John
Timms, Stephen


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Touhig, Don


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Trickett, Jon


Mandelson, Peter
Turner, Dennis





Tyler, Paul
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Walker, Sir Harold
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Walley, Ms Joan
Worthington, Tony


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wareing, Robert N
Wright, Dr Tony


Watson, Mike



Wicks, Malcolm
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wigley, Dafydd
Mr. John Cummings and


Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Mr. Eric Clarke.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cran, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alexander, Richard
Curry, David


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Duncan, Alan


Baldry, Tony
Duncan Smith, Iain


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Biffen, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Faber, David


Booth, Hartley
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eitham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowis, John
Forth, Eric


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Fowler, Sir Norman


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brazier, Julian
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bright, Sir Graham
Freeman, Roger


Brooke, Peter
French, Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Fry, Sir Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gallie, Phil


Budgen, Nicholas
Gardiner, Sir George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, John


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coe, Sebastian
Hannam, Sir John


Colvin, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, Sir John
Hayes, Jerry


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver


Couchman, James
Heath, Sir Edward






Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Michael
Patrick, Sir Irvine


Hicks, Sir Robert
Patten, John


Higgins, Sir Terence
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)
Pawsey, James


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Porter, David


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Hurd, Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Dame Angela


King, Tom
Ryder, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Scott, Sir Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, Sir David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kynoch, George
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Legg, Barry
Sims, Sir Roger


Leigh, Edward
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lidington, David
Soames, Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Speed, Sir Keith


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


MacGregor, John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Andrew
Sproat, Iain


Maclean, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stanley, Sir John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Steen, Anthony


Madel, Sir David
Stephen, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stern, Michael


Major, John
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Ottaway, Richard
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Wilshire, David


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Waterson, Nigel
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wheeler, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Whitney, Sir Raymond
Yeo, Tim


Whittingdale, John
Young, Sir George


Widdecombe, Miss Ann



Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Willetts, David
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 11

SCHOOL PERFORMANCE TARGETS IN LITERACY

'( )—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as she considers appropriate for requiring the governing bodies of maintained schools to secure that annual targets are set as to literacy in respect of pupils of compulsory school age.
(2) Targets required under this section shall be set in respect of—

(a) assessments at the end of each key stage for the purposes of the National Curriculum as specified in section 355 of the Education Act 1996: and
(b) the performance of pupils during each key stage.'.—[Ms Estelle Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Estelle Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 52, in clause 35, page 29, line 36, after 'Curriculum', insert
'(to the extent that they are not required under subsection (2)(a) of section (School performance targets in literacy)).'.
No. 58, in page 29, line 40, at end insert—
'(1A) A governing body shall, before setting annual targets for pupils in the school in accordance with subsection (1) above, consult the local education authority and have regard to its views in setting such targets'

Ms Morris: I shall start by saying something that will find agreement on both sides of the House on the importance of literacy in teaching and learning. It is important to master that basic skill if one is to access the rest of the curriculum and to realise one's potential. It is true to say that literacy, more than any other subject, underpins everyone's learning. Certainly, in the debate we had on this issue in Committee, the Minister made clear his agreement with us that any measures that would help to raise literacy standards in our schools should be considered.
The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to require governing bodies of maintained schools to set annual targets for literacy standards. In Committee, the Minister made the valid point that literacy is covered by the national curriculum at all stages and is one of the subjects and skill areas that is subjected to testing by standard assessment test at all the key stages. We have no problem with that: literacy is of paramount importance and it is right that it is a central feature of the national curriculum and of standard assessment tests.
5 pm
Re-reading the Committee Hansard, we can see that the issue on which we parted company with the Government was whether further targets needed to be set year on year, in between assessments at the key stages.


The difference between our new clause and the current statutory provisions is that very point: the new clause would allow targets to be set for individual pupils in the years between SATs. Instead of setting targets on literacy for schools to reach that would be measured at the assessment points, we would require annual targets to be set for individual pupil performance for every year of their school career.
Our reason for requiring extra attention to be given to literacy targets, so that literacy is measured more frequently than SATs currently do, is that too many of our young pupils are not achieving the necessary levels of literacy, especially at the age of 11. I know that the Minister, teachers and parents share our concern that more than 40 per cent.—almost half—of 11-year-olds are not achieving the standard of literacy that we could reasonably expect at that age. Unless we conquer that problem and take measures to ensure that as many as possible of our 11-year-olds achieve a reading age that is commensurate with their chronological age, we will allow them to enter secondary school without having mastered the important skill of literacy.
There are a number of ways in which we can do that. Labour proposals for smaller class sizes, more nursery education, and ensuring that children do not move on to the next year in years five and six without having achieved a level of literacy commensurate with their chronological age, are measures that can help us to raise literacy standards. We have to know what standard every pupil has reached at every point in his or her school career. Leaving the testing of literacy standards to tests at seven, 11, 14 and 16 is not sufficient to spot whether children are falling behind in this important area of learning.
I doubt whether this is a contentious issue. The new clause addresses the common concern of all hon. Members to ensure that literacy standards in this country rise to levels equal to those of our competitor nations. It merely provides that all pupils, year on year, should be set targets for improvement in literacy; that those targets should be realised wherever possible; and that action should be taken to support students who are not reaching the target levels that they can reasonably be expected to reach.
The new clause and the associated amendments build on provisions already in the Bill that will require schools to set targets at the key stages by requiring them also to set targets year on year, so that we can reach the point at which we are setting targets for literacy year on year, making sure that those targets are reached and taking measures to support pupils when those targets are not reached.
Probably the biggest challenge is to make sure that, at the age of 11, no child moves on to secondary education without having reached a level of literacy and numeracy that equips him or her to cope with the secondary school curriculum. The new clause is but one of several measures that Labour Members believe will help us to meet that challenge. I hope that we can reach a common understanding that target setting on an annual basis by schools to help raise literacy standards will play an important part in our shared quest to raise standards for all our pupils, especially in key areas.

Mr. Forth: As the hon. Lady pointed out, new clause 11 is intended to focus schools' attention on their pupils'

levels of literacy. No one would disagree that that is a vitally important task and it is one that the Government have set as one of their highest priorities: that is why we have placed basic skills at the heart of the school curriculum and teacher training, and why we have set up the literacy and numeracy centres that are already giving excellent support to teachers around the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made clear in her recent speech at the north of England conference that she will be saying more over the next few weeks and months about the Government's plans in that key area, so it can be seen that we are operating in a dynamic environment.
The new clause fails to recognise what the Government are already doing to deal with literacy. We have introduced regular assessment of pupils for the purposes of the national curriculum—and that, of course, includes English. This year, we are again improving the quality and rigour of tests in schools and emphasising the acquisition of basic numeracy and literacy skills. At key stage 1, the 1997 arrangements include new reading tasks and tests; a writing task for all children which assesses their ability to communicate meaning in writing, to use punctuation and spelling accurately and to write legibly; a spelling test, mainly for those working at level 2 or above in writing; and complementary teacher assessment.
At key stage 2, there is a reading comprehension test, a writing test, a spelling and handwriting test and complementary teacher assessment. At key stage 3, there is a Shakespeare paper that sets questions requiring close reading and analysis of a particular scene, a writing paper, a national pilot of a new paper specifically testing grammar, spelling and punctuation, and complementary teacher assessment. All those measures demonstrate our commitment to improving standards of literacy.
Two further reservations prevent me from accepting the hon. Lady's remarks, and we touched on these points in Committee. To single out literacy above all other subjects is mistaken. When I was asked in Committee whether there was anything else I could mention that was as important as literacy, I hazarded that, to my mind, numeracy ranks on a level with literacy. Others might argue that communication skills, which differ from narrowly defined literacy, are as important in today's and tomorrow's world, while yet others might say that a mastery of information technology is becoming a fundamental skill.

Mr. David Jamieson: There is a difference between literacy and numeracy and other aspects of technology, because literacy is that which underpins all learning. Reading, writing, listening and speaking skills are absolutely essential to learning numeracy or any other subject in the curriculum. We are saying that literacy is so important because it is the fundamental base for all learning; in that sense, it differs from the other skills that the Minister mentioned.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman and I will have to agree to disagree on that point. I do not think that his analysis is accurate, nor that it merits inclusion on the face of statute, which would be the effect of the new clause.
I have a different problem with amendment No. 58, which yet again seeks to insert local education authorities into the process. That is unnecessary and, indeed,


grant-maintained schools in particular would have some difficulty with the amendment's absolute and blanket requirement for local education authority involvement. Whether that is an accident or a subtle ploy by Labour Members, we may never know. One way or another, however, I believe that it is a fundamental objection.

Ms Estelle Morris: I wish to press the Minister on an issue that he has not mentioned. He referred to target setting at key stages 1, 2 and 3. The new clause would ensure that literacy targets are set for every year of a child's school career. Will the Minister address that key aspect of the new clause before he concludes his remarks?

Mr. Forth: It is a matter of judgment whether we are ready for that degree of prescription. Opposition Members—perhaps the hon. Lady herself—have criticised the Government over the years for introducing too much central prescription and control in education. One of the ironies of recent developments is that we are in danger of being overtaken on the fast track by Opposition Members, such as the hon. Lady, who want Government to prescribe even more than the Department for Education and Employment has suggested. The hon. Lady may like to ponder that point.
I am not persuaded that the new clause would be productive—indeed, I fear that it might even be counter-productive, for the reasons that I have outlined. Therefore, I hope that it will not be accepted by the House.

Ms Estelle Morris: That argument is rather difficult to accept from a Government who prescribe almost everything that occurs in education and who retain so many powers. The Minister said that it is not appropriate to set yearly literacy targets in education, but there is nothing more important than ensuring that our young people master literacy at an early age. If they do not succeed in primary school, they have little chance of mastering literacy at a secondary level. Literacy is central to learning, and too many children do not achieve the required levels of literacy at age 11.
Targets are important at the key stages, but much learning occurs between the ages of five and seven, seven and 11, and 11 and 14. If teachers do not identify what is going wrong at age eight, three valuable years will be wasted before the problems are discovered at age 11. The new clause calls for constant monitoring and target setting so that every child may improve his or her literacy standards year on year. That is what parents want. I cannot think that any parents would resent the Government's requiring their children to be set targets in order to improve their literacy skills year on year.
The Minister refuses to accept a simple new clause that requires that targets be set so that every child may improve his or her literacy skills on a yearly basis. Opposition Members have made clear the importance that we attach to high standards of literacy, and we believe that every child should improve in that area year on year. We want schools and everyone else to support children in achieving those targets. I am sure that parents and teachers would welcome the move, which would be good for pupils and for education standards in this country. I regret very much that the Minister will not accept the new

clause. However, as I am conscious of the need to make progress in considering the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 1

SIBLINGS

'( )—(1) A maintained school which admits a proportion of its pupils by reference to ability or aptitude, and also within its admission arrangements accords priority—

(a) on the basis of the proximity of a pupil's home to the school; and
(b) to a sibling of a pupil or former pupil

shall accord a greater measure of priority on the basis of—

(a) proximity; or
(b) being a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted on the basis of proximity

than that accorded to a sibling of a pupil or former pupil who was admitted by reference to their ability or aptitude.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will be aware of my opposition to selection—and particularly partial selection—in schools. New clause 1 tries to draw attention to what I suspect may be an unexpected outcome of the Government's proposals to extend opportunities for partial selection in schools.
It is well known that in the event of over-subscription, schools normally include in the admission arrangements provision for the allocation of places on the basis of proximity to the school, with additional priority given to siblings. The criteria for the allocation of places must be published, clear and ranked in order of priority. When a school is partially selective, other criteria will obviously apply to the non-selective places. If a partially selective school is over-subscribed, it is likely that a number of local children will be displaced by children from more distant areas who are admitted under the selection process. A significant proportion of those children will live outside the locality that the school serves; otherwise, there would be little point in a school becoming partially selective. I hope that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) accepts that point.
5.15 pm
Unless local children and their siblings receive a higher degree of priority on allocation of the non-selective places than do the siblings of children who were admitted in previous years to selective places, the proportion of non-selective places offered to children from distant areas will increase incrementally over time, thereby denying access to local children. My point is clear: if there is a partially selective system and a sibling rule, over time there will be diminished opportunities for local children to attend their local school.
For example, if a school admits 150 pupils annually and we assume that 30 per cent. of its intake—or 45 pupils—are selected according to ability, 105 non-selective places will remain to be filled. However, if the operation of partial selection continues


in year 2 and 10 places are allocated to the siblings of pupils admitted to selective places in the previous year—a large percentage of whom will live outside the normal catchment area—only 95 non-selective places will remain for local children. As the years pass, an increased number of children from distant areas and their siblings will be admitted to selective places. If sibling priority is ranked higher man proximity, the inevitable outcome will be the incremental loss of non-selective places to children who gain access purely on the basis of proximity. Therefore, we can protect local children's access to local schools only by giving greater priority to proximity and to the siblings of those admitted on the grounds of proximity.
When we debated the issue in Committee, it was apparent from the Minister's response that she did not understand that consequence of the Government's proposed legislation. I hope that she has reflected on her remarks since then and that she will now support the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): If I remember correctly, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) moved a similar amendment in Committee, although it was certainly different from the new clause that he has moved today. He did so with a great deal of frivolity, suggesting that he was emulating the style of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth). However, by his own admission, "It clearly did not work"—and it is clearly not working today.
Opposition Members have shown on several occasions during the passage of the Bill that they would like the Government to prescribe schools' admission arrangements. However, the Government believe that the schools and local education authorities are in the best position to take an informed view about the admission arrangements that best suit them and their localities.

Mr. Don Foster: Would it be possible under current legislation for a local education authority to include in its admission arrangements the procedures that I propose in the new clause?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is quick to get to his feet. His question will be answered firmly at the end of my contribution to the debate.
The hon. Gentleman said that he is concerned about schools attracting a higher number of children who are not local to the school. If the problem of a shortage of places for local children arises for whatever reason, the LEA or the Funding Agency for Schools will take the necessary action. The planning authorities are used to ensuring a proper supply of places in an area and taking account of demand from other LEA areas.
A neighbourhood comprehensive does not have to be a parent's only choice. We believe that parents want different types of schools from which to make a choice for their child. The hon. Gentleman will admit that parents have long sought places in denominational single-sex schools and in grammar schools in other LEA areas. There is nothing new about that.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that, if schools want to give priority to siblings of children admitted by selection, that must be a matter for them. Likewise, if they

wish to change their admission criteria in line with the new clause, they are free to do so. I therefore reject the new clause.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Minister advocates the primacy of parental choice. I understand that, but will she tell the House who makes the choice where there is over-subscription? Does the school make the choice, or do the parents make it, when they cannot gain access to a school that they would dearly like their child to attend?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman knows that, unfortunately, some parents are disappointed and cannot send their child to the school of their choice. We remain firmly committed to the principle of selection, allowing schools to choose how they bring in that selection. The permissive provisions in the Bill are firmly supported by Conservative Members.

Mr. Kilfoyle: rose—

Mrs. Gillan: I will not give way a second time to the hon. Gentleman. I had finished my remarks. I reject new clause 1.

Mr. Don Foster: Many LEAs will be interested in the debate and will take note of the Minister's clear assurance that it is within their present power to introduce the admission arrangements set out in the new clause.
As all hon. Members want to make swift progress in our further consideration of the Bill, and as there may be an opportunity to return to the matter in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2

SCHOOL PREMISES AND SURPLUS PLACES

'School premises

( )—(1) The Secretary of State shall conduct and publish a review of regulations relating to the size and standard of school premises for the purposes specified in subsection (3) below.
(2) Before undertaking such a review, the Secretary of State shall consult such persons as appear to her to be concerned.
(3) The purpose of the review referred to in subsection (1) above shall be to enable the Secretary of State to consider, before bringing into force under section 72(3) below any provision amending the provisions of section 259A of the Education Act 1996, the effect on the efficient use of premises and the creation of surplus places of any such provision.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I remind the House that, some time ago, the Government removed the space regulations that applied to our schools. Many of us have been concerned about the removal of those regulations, fearing that in certain circumstances it may lead to further overcrowding in schools. There is clear evidence that the Government are keen on the uncontrolled expansion of pupil numbers in some schools. The matter was debated in relation to new clause 3, which was defeated last night, and discussed by the Prime Minister and his colleagues in their meeting to


prepare the Government's forthcoming manifesto proposals. A review is needed of the space requirements of schools.
It is important to consider the implications of the uncontrolled expansion of schools proposed by the Government. The best evidence of the potential consequences comes from the Audit Commission report entitled "Trading Places", which I am sure that many hon. Members have seen.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will see that I also have a copy of the report. Will he remind the House of the timing of our debate in Standing Committee and the timing of the publication of that document?

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He was present in the Standing Committee and is aware of the amazing juxtaposition of those dates. The day after we concluded our deliberations in Committee, the report was published. Had it been available to us in Committee, we might have had an even more well-informed debate on the Government's proposals.
The report contains an indictment of the Government's proposals for the uncontrolled expansion of schools. It identifies a direct conflict between promoting grant-maintained schools and ensuring the economic and efficient supply of school places. Since GM status was introduced, 40 per cent. of schools that local education authorities wanted to close have remained open by opting out, despite the clear commitment that opting out was not to be a route used by schools to avoid an LEA reorganisation proposal.
The report shows that the cost of promoting choice undermines the need to control public expenditure, and that there is no clear evidence of the Government's policy in that regard. It reveals a breakdown in the system of capital allocations to schools, which has prevented LEAs from maintaining—let alone improving—their school buildings. It shows the total confusion caused by the Government's use of two different definitions of school capacity, resulting in great overcrowding, especially in popular primary schools.
The report calls on the Government to revise their policies on GM status for schools facing reorganisation, capital allocation to schools, the definition of school capacity, parental choice, and the balance between parental choice and surplus places.
The report suggests that more effective power should be given to local agencies, especially LEAs, to plan provision, in marked contrast to the Government's current proposals to allow the unfettered expansion of some schools. It recommends that local agencies should have more powers to manage the market, and that an improved set of incentives should be introduced to promote value for money.
In the light of the Audit Commission report, the Minister will have to reconsider parts of the Bill and new clause 3, which the Government will no doubt seek to reintroduce in another place. The report is a condemnation of existing and planned Government policies. Although it is couched in the impeccably professional terminology that one would expect from the Audit Commission, its recommendations, taken together, raise serious questions about the Government's policy approach.
The attempt to replace rational planning with a market-driven consumerist approach is, according to the evidence in the report, patently failing to deliver parental choice or real diversity and, as far as the Audit Commission can tell, is not even leading to a rise in standards in our schools.
In reviewing recent experience, the Audit Commission paints a picture that is all too familiar to education officers, head teachers and parents in many parts of the country. Nationally, nearly 20 per cent. of schools are operating at 105 per cent. or more of their physical capacity and more than 50 per cent. of primary classrooms offer less space per pupils than recommended. There is overcrowding in spite of the fact that in popular schools
'choice' is primarily exercised by the schools deciding which pupils they will accept … rather than by parents deciding which school their children will attend.
5.30 pm
Parental satisfaction—or lack of it—can also be measured by the increase in primary and secondary appeals of 58 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively between 1992 and 1995. In one example, the "plethora of admission arrangements" means that parents have a choice of seven varieties of school, with a large number of schools of each variety, many of which have individual admission arrangements. The net result is that one group of parents can hold on to a sheaf of offers while others go through an appeals procedure that frequently causes parents distress and must have serious effects on the pupils involved.
The study quotes the evidence of a specially commissioned MORI poll on secondary transfer, the first such poll to dig beneath the surface of parental choice. It found that, in addition to the 10 per cent. of parents who did not get their first choice of school, another 9 per cent. did not even feel able to ask for their genuine first preference, in case it stopped them getting their second or third genuine preference.
In some parts of London, where the Government's encouragement to parents to shop around has been made much easier by the Greenwich judgment—whereby local authorities are prevented from offering any priority to their own residents—49 per cent. of parents are failing to obtain a place for their child in their genuine first preference school. Huge numbers of children trek across the capital to distant schools and other children travel from Brighton to schools in south London.

Mr. Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman name them?

Mr. Foster: The right hon. Gentleman asks me to name them. I have not yet had the opportunity on the Floor of the House to congratulate the Minister on his recent elevation and I do so now, but I strongly suggest that he should talk to LEAs such as Richmond and ask them about the serious difficulties created by the Greenwich judgment.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I was inviting him to name some of the children who are trekking across London to better schools. I thought that the House might be illuminated by that information.

Mr. Foster: No doubt the Minister is hoping that I will refer to some of his would-be future constituents and give


him some publicity in that respect. I have no intention of helping him out, but I am sure that he would not deny what I said.
By far the shortest chapter in the Audit Commission report is that dealing with the impact on LEA performance. A minority of LEAs are criticised for failing to close schools or tackle the problem of small sixth forms. However, there is scant mention of schools threatening to seek grant-maintained status if reorganisation, let alone closure, is even mooted. The report makes no mention of the Education Bill, which will enable grant-maintained schools to expand by 50 per cent. and to open a sixth form and a nursery without having to seek approval. Had such a reference been made, I have no doubt that the condemnation in the report would have been even greater.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Quite manifestly, those schools would not be seeking to increase their numbers if they did not have demand from parents. We are in favour of parental choice.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady has failed to understand the principles underlying the Government's proposals. Let me explain. At present, it is perfectly possible for a popular school to expand its numbers subject to approval and the appropriate funding becoming available within the local education authority arrangements, but those arrangements require the publication of the appropriate statutory notices, the appropriate consultation and, if there are objections, the ultimate opportunity for the Secretary of State to reject those proposals if, for example, he believes that they may have significant damaging effects on the education provided in neighbouring schools.
The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) fails to recognise that the Government are now proposing to allow schools to expand without even seeking the approval of the Secretary of State and certainly without taking into account the impact of that expansion on the education provided in neighbouring schools. She should reflect on the fact that in the past, under current arrangements, the Secretary of State has rejected proposals for the expansion of certain schools, no doubt for good reasons. Whatever other concerns she might have, the hon. Lady ought to be concerned about the constitutional position. Individual schools are given the unfettered right to do almost whatever they want, regardless of the impact on any other schools and without the Secretary of State having the right to intervene.
To return to the Audit Commission report, the most telling comment on Government policy is contained in the long chapter devoted to the impact of national policy. It states:
the pursuit of a wide range of competing objectives has generated tensions and conflicts … and risks the school planning system becoming gridlocked.
That must concern us all. The report states that ways must be found to avoid the impending gridlock in the allocation of places and to restore parental confidence in a system in which recent changes have led to more overcrowding, a frantic scramble for places in popular schools at infant, junior and secondary level, more appeals, higher levels

of expectation and even higher levels of disappointment, longer journeys to school for pupils of all ages and significantly—I hope that the hon. Lady is listening—a waste of resources through duplication in some areas and shortages in others.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Member has not had the misfortune of dealing with Lancashire county council, which deliberately keeps open many secondary school places in east Lancashire, where the population is not increasing, to the detriment of the schools in north Lancashire, where the population is increasing. The population is not increasing in Skelmersdale and Burnley, but it is certainly going up in Garstang, Lancaster and the entire Wyre district.

Mr. Foster: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her consistent concern for the educational provision in her constituency. I cannot speak as eloquently as she does about her area, as she knows it far better than I do. I merely assure her that according to the Audit Commission report, one of the key blocks to the ability of LEAs to take out surplus places is existing Government policy, particularly the policy that has been promoting competition between schools so vigorously. The hon. Lady shakes her head, but that is what the report says. She cannot deny that.
In conclusion, the new clause represents a modest proposal. It does not go so far as to reimpose a formal space limit—as I would do, in an ideal world. It requires the Government to undertake a serious review of the effects of their earlier action in removing those space regulations. There is now powerful new evidence that such a review is not only prudent but urgently needed. If it revealed that the removal of earlier regulations had produced results that created cause for concern, there would be a strong case for their reintroduction. I suggest that, without a review, it would be wholly and absolutely wrong for the House to support legislation that would provide an unfettered opportunity for schools to expand the number of places they offer without any control whatsoever.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I wish to add to the comments by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). In general, I support his contention regarding the conclusions of the Audit Commission report known as "Trading Places". When we examine some of those conclusions, we understand how fortunate the Government were that the report was published the day after we finished our deliberations in Committee. It is important to place those conclusions on the record, because they have a bearing on the important new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Bath.
There are an estimated 900,000 surplus places in schools. If the Government of the day were to remove a realistic percentage—say 40 per cent.—£100 million a year would be saved, which might be better employed on progressive educational policies. One school in six has more than 25 per cent. of its places unfilled, and that position is not restricted to any one type of school or any one local education authority—it is spread throughout the spectrum. The position has improved significantly since previous studies, but there is still a very long way to go. One school in five is overcrowded. That leads to larger classes, but I shall not stray on to the subject of a later debate.
The report signals the problems of sink schools and over-subscribed schools and says that neither type of school is in a position to respond to its situation, one because of loss of funding and the other because of lack of capital. I am moved to recall the comments of a former Secretary of State, Mark Carlisle, who said that schools did not have elastic sides. Schools, even when over-subscribed, can deal with only a finite number of pupils. It is very difficult to reallocate places. We accept the difficulty; we do not understand the Government's unwillingness to do anything about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has mentioned the gridlock of places several times, and the hon. Member for Bath referred to it earlier. We need a national policy framework to prevent the whole system from being placed at risk of gridlock.
In "Trading Places", the Audit Commission said:
The pursuit of a wide range of competing objectives has generated tensions and conflicts between policies which prevent any of them from being implemented with full effect, and risks the school planning system becoming gridlocked. It is not possible for LEAs to move forward on all of these policies as currently defined, and maximise value for money.
The hon. Member for Bath mentioned the problem of schools opting out to avoid closure. I have had experience of it in my home town and it is not beneficial in any shape or form, even to the illusion of selection.
I note what the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) said about the belief in parental choice. I also note the Under-Secretary's comments on new clause 1, when she said that parents do not have choice where there is an over-subscribed school. I believe that the record will show that there is a contradiction there. If we want further evidence, we need only consider the steep rise in the number of appeals to recognise that people are not getting the choice that they wish for their children.
On the subject of schools opting out to avoid closure, the Audit Commission said:
There is a tension between the policy of promoting GM schools and that of ensuring the economic and efficient supply of school places.

Mrs. Gillan: I would like the hon. Gentleman to square his recent remarks with the fact that last night he voted against popular schools expanding.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Last night, the Government failed abysmally in that vote. Earlier today, the Minister spoke about basic skills. Whether there was a deficiency in numeracy or in communication skills, it certainly showed in the Government Whips' abject failure to deliver a vote for the Government on one of their flagship policies.
Last night, we voted against allowing one part of the maintained sector to expand without reference to the impact on provision generally in the vast majority of our schools. The proposal was unconscionable and inefficient and the House delivered its judgment—on the second occasion. I hope that, when the Government attempt to raise that matter in another place, their Lordships will take a similar view.
"Trading Places" flagged up the inefficiency of planning, with both LEAs and the Funding Agency for Schools making proposals for new capacity where basic need exists. That has already occurred in Epsom and Colchester—hardly bastions of the hard left. "Trading Places" says:

If the proposals in the 1996 White Paper to allow the FAS to propose new GM schools in all LEAs become law, duplication may become common"—
not my words, but those of the Audit Commission. It described the difficulties that the Government have caused popular schools that wish to expand. They lead to larger classes and, as the Audit Commission said in "Trading Places",
Satisfaction through achieving the school of your choice may lead to dissatisfaction with its large class sizes".
How do our schools compare with those of our overseas competitors—those people against whom we must compete in education, as in all things, to succeed in the modern world? The majority of the 10 overseas primary schools that were surveyed had either minimum space requirements, which the Government in their wisdom lifted in September 1996, or an upper limit on class size, or both. Pointedly, the Audit Commission report states that this country has neither.
5.45 pm
On LEAs' planning of school places, "Trading Places" warns:
there is a danger of establishing a vicious circle … The dispersal of LEA powers encourages central government to take more powers to itself and to use these powers more actively; which in turn limits the scope and incentives for LEAs to act of their own volition; which in turn encourages central government to assume more powers of direction and co-ordination; which in turn reduces the LEA role still further.
Those are not my words or those of local education authorities or of any alleged vested interest in education; they are those of the Audit Commission.
The Audit Commission argues that there is a need for a local solution. It says:
Such problems require local intelligence, local judgment, and local action—and national government is too remote to be able to provide these as quickly or as effectively as a local agency.
That points to the need for a local solution:
the need for effective local intervention and co-ordination to manage the market".
Pointedly, the Audit Commission comments:
Inaction is not an option. Unwanted and unnecessary school places lock up scarce resources which could be used elsewhere. Class sizes continue to rise in popular schools. Appeals are on the increase. Schemes for school rationalisation are decreasing. Government and LEAs blame each other"—
and that is where the deadlock is risked.
I shall finish by quoting once more from "Trading Places"—that splendid piece of research and erudition by the Audit Commission. It was a pity that we did not have the opportunity to use the material contained therein in Committee.
"Trading Places" suggests a stronger role for local agencies in managing the local market—I am quite taken by the phrases used by Government these days. I quote:
Local problems are solved most efficiently by agencies operating at the local level. Such agencies could be given duties to plan the supply and allocation of places in the local area, to co-ordinate admissions … and intervene where a school was not delivering an adequate standard of education … One approach would be for agencies to develop local education plans".
Now there is a marvellous phrase. It seems to echo down the years—certainly recent years—in Labour party education policy.


One approach would be for agencies to develop local education plans, consulting extensively with interested bodies in the area. These plans, covering a 3 to 5 year period, would be submitted to central government for approval, after which as many decisions as possible should be taken by the agency without reference to the Secretary of State".
I conclude my remarks there, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will take heed of the very serious comments, reservations and proposals of the Audit Commission—a body with no partiality in these matters except for effective good practice.

Mrs. Gillan: We have had quite a lengthy debate on new clause 2. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) wishes to discuss placing conditions on the operation of a clause that is not part of the Bill. His approach shows a justified awareness—

Mr. Don Foster: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is suggesting that the debate is not in order because it was not agreed that new clause 3 should stand part of the Bill. Would I be correct in reminding the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you gave a ruling when I raised the matter yesterday? You said that it would be perfectly in order to discuss the matters that have been raised in this debate, and that it was for the Government to sort out the difficulties that they have created.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I can confirm that the present debate is perfectly in order.

Mrs. Gillan: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Bath jumped to his feet so prematurely before I had completed my sentence. He is showing a justified awareness that any reversals in the Bill's progress will be merely transitory. I wished to thank him for his vote of confidence in the Government.

Mr. Jamieson: I am interested in what the Minister has just said. She described the problems that the Government are having with the Bill as transitory. How do the Government intend to reintroduce new clause 3?

Mrs. Gillan: The Government remain committed to the clause that was lost last night. We shall therefore seek to reintroduce it in another place.
There is no need for a review of school premises regulations. The regulations were revised only last year, as many hon. Members will remember only too well. We eliminated much that was bureaucratic and inflexible and retained the minimum standards that count. It is predictable that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) will try to relive that previous debate.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Predictably, the Minister is wrong. I intended to ask her to confirm that the Government, in removing school places, took away the miserly minimum space per child and the minimum space for recreation that had prevailed for a long time before changes were made in the regulations.

Mrs. Gillan: I remember that we gave more powers to local education authorities. It has been argued from the

Opposition Dispatch Box this afternoon that centralising is wrong and that decentralising—making power more local—is correct, but when it came to minimum teaching areas the Opposition did not apply the principle that they preach so often.
We are concerned about the health, safety and welfare of pupils, which is why we have retained the minimum standards that count. Before the new regulations were made, we carefully considered which elements of the old regulations needed to be retained. We consulted schools and LEAs, among others. Whatever were their individual concerns, there was consensus that change was needed. The new regulations retained the essential safeguards and eliminated irrelevant detail.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Gillan: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman because we have had several exchanges on these matters in previous debates. I know that he feels strongly about them. I am sure that he is about to say something that we have heard before, but I am willing to give way to him.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister. It is right that we have had detailed debates in Committee on a former Bill. We are now, however, in the House. We did not have much opportunity to discuss the statutory instrument that followed that former Bill.
The Minister has talked about minimum standards that count. Of course there must be hygiene, fire and ventilation regulations, for example. Is the hon. Lady saying to teachers that adequate space and flexibility in a secondary school in arranging lessons and a timetable are not physically important standards that must be achieved—standards that she and the rest of the Government have swept away?

Mrs. Gillan: I agree that such matters are important. The hon. Gentleman puts a great deal of faith in LEAs, and so did we on this occasion. It is for LEAs to manage their affairs, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that if the regulations had not been modified, the vast majority of village schools, which do an excellent job, would have faced closure?

Mrs. Gillan: I cannot confirm what my hon. Friend says at the moment. I know, however, that many village schools do an excellent job. I am sure that all Members would endorse that.
When deciding to deregulate to allow grant-maintained schools to expand by up to 50 per cent. without the need to publish statutory proposals, we considered the effect on surplus places throughout the country. We believed that the net effect on the total number of surplus places would be minimal.
Yes, the expansion of popular GM schools may lead to surplus places in unpopular schools. As a result of parental choice, parents will choose the schools that they think best for their children. If that means that an unpopular school becomes unviable, there will be ways to deal with that. I hope that Opposition Members will not suggest that parents should be forced to send their


children to schools that they do not wish them to attend so that no school should have to close or improve its performance to enable it to compete.
We want to allow good and popular schools to expand. One effect of that will be to identify more sharply unpopular schools, which should be the first in line when considering how and where to remove surplus places. If the net effect is more places at good and popular schools and fewer at unpopular schools, will Opposition Members object to that outcome?
If surplus places and expanded GM schools are worrying Opposition Members, they do not need to become too concerned. Grant-maintained schools are popular with pupils and parents and they achieve good results. If there is no demand in a certain area, schools within it will not seek to expand. I remind the House that grant for capital work will not be automatically available to GM schools that wish to expand. Such schools will need to make a good case to the Funding Agency for Schools, or raise the money themselves.
It is—[Interruption.] I was not quite sure. I did not know whether you were looking at me in an appealing fashion or whether you wanted to intervene.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing me.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall address you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
What does the Minister foresee in the theoretical demand for expansion of a GM school? How does she see the transition of other schools that, of necessity, will lose pupils to GM schools? Does she see those schools withering on the vine as pupils move out of them? Does she see them developing into sink schools, for example?

Mrs. Gillan: The hon. Gentleman is not up to date. He seems to be caught in a time warp of grammar schools and comprehensives. I see choice and diversity. A school that is not grant-maintained may try to improve its targets. It may go for technology college or language college status. We are creating choice within the education system, but the hon. Gentleman is talking the language of 20 years ago.
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my inaccuracy. I am sorry that I addressed the Chair incorrectly. I did not think for one moment that you. Madam Deputy Speaker, were looking appealingly at me.
The hon. Member for Bath queried the timing of the production of the Audit Commission's report. I think that he should apologise to the commission. It would not take kindly to having the date of its reports dictated by the Government or the Opposition. The report was published in December, and we shall obviously reflect on what it has to say. We welcomed the attention that the report gave to removing surplus places. We in the Department have been stressing the importance of that for some time. Considerable progress has been made. The number of surplus places has been about halved over the past 10 years.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is talking about the removal of surplus places. A short while ago she referred to the Audit Commission's report. For the enlightenment

of the House, will she tell us whether her Department had sight of the draft of the report before the final report was published?

Mrs. Gillan: I have no idea. I have, however, had sight of a press release that was issued by the Department yesterday in the name of my hon. Friend with responsibilities for schools, which includes the latest figures on the reduction in surplus places. There has been a 1 per cent. fall to about 10 per cent. of the total capacity of 7.6 million places. That is encouraging, but some local authorities could do better. We share the Audit Commission's view that more could be done, such as encouraging LEAs to follow the examples of good practice contained in the report. Officials will continue to follow up individual local authorities whose returns suggest scope for action where it is not being taken.
Time is running short and we have ranged widely over topics related to the new clause. We have discussed briefly the Audit Commission's report, "Trading Places", and in rejecting the new clause I can safely say to Opposition Members that we will not be trading places with them.

6 pm

Mr. Don Foster: As the Minister said, the debate has been wide ranging, and rightly so, because this important issue goes to the heart of the difference between the Opposition's approach to planning for education and that of the Government. Liberal Democrats believe that there should be an element of strategic planning to maximise parental choice. I would argue that that view is supported by the conclusions of the Audit Commission's report, which makes it clear that the Government's policies are leading not to increased parental choice but to reduced choice.
The Minister seems unconcerned about the effect of the removal by her Department of the space regulations. To date, she has not given us a clear explanation of why the regulations were removed, and has consistently refused to make available to hon. Members the details of the alleged extensive review undertaken by her Department, which she claims led to the Government's policy in this area.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister referred to surplus places, but she will not give a definition of a place, so how do the Government know how many places are allegedly surplus?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman has referred to that confusion on a number of occasions. He rightly points to the fact that neither this Minister nor any other Minister has ever answered that question.
The Minister continues to peddle the notion that grant-maintained status is popular, whereas in reality it is not. As I have said in the House before—I happily repeat it—the best evidence to justify my claim is the simple statistic that in the past 12 months only 0.5 per cent. of all eligible schools even bothered to hold a ballot on grant-maintained status. It is not popular, and it cannot be right for grant-maintained schools to be given the unfettered right to expand their school premises and pupil numbers without having any regard to the impact that that may have on neighbouring schools. I hope that the new clause will receive the widespread support that it deserves so as to avoid further chaos in our education system, such as the Government's policies have already caused.

Question, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 304.

Division No. 55]
[6.3 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dobson, Frank


Ainger, Nick
Donohoe, Brian H


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allen, Graham
Eagle, Ms Angela


Alton, David
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Ennis, Jeff


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Etherington, Bill


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashdown, Paddy
Fatchett Derek


Ashton, Joseph
Faulds, Andrew


Austin-Walker, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fisher, Mark


Barnes, Harry
Foster, Don (Bath)


Barren, Kevin
Foulkes, George


Battle, John
Fraser, John


Bayley, Hugh
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Beith, A J
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, Andrew F
Gapes, Mike


Benton, Joe
Garrett, John


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Berry, Roger
Gerrard, Neil


Betts, Clive
Gilbert, Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gunnell, John


Burden, Richard
Hain, Peter


Caborn, Richard
Hall, Mike


Callaghan, Jim
Hanson, David


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Harvey, Nick


Campbell-Savours, D N
Hattersley, Roy


Canavan, Dennis
Heppell, John


Cann, Jamie
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Chidgey, David
Hinchliffe, David


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clapham, Michael
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hood, Jimmy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hood, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Connarty, Michael
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr Kim


Corbett, Robin
Hoyle, Doug


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cox, Tom
Hutton, John


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)


Cunningham, Dr John
Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)


Dafis, Cynog
Jamieson, David


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)


Denham, John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)


Dewar, Donald
Jowell, Ms Tessa





Kaufman, Gerald
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Keen, Alan
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C&S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Radice, Giles


Khabra, Piara S
Randall, Stuart


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Reid, Dr John


Lewis, Terry
Rendel, David


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Litherland, Robert
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Rogers, Allan


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rooney, Terry


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Sedgemore, Brian


Macdonald, Calum
Sheerman, Barry


McFall, John
Sheldon, Robert


McKelvey, William
Shore, Peter


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Clare


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


MacShane, Denis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McWilliam, John
Snape, Peter


Madden, Max
Soley, Clive


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Spearing, Nigel


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Sir David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steinberg, Gerry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stevenson, George


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Stott, Roger


Martlew, Eric
Strang, Dr Gavin


Maxton, John
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Milburn, Alan
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Miller, Andrew
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Timms, Stephen


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Tipping, Paddy


Morgan, Rhodri
Touhig, Don



Trickett, Jon


Morley, Elliot
Turner, Dennis


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Tyler, Paul


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Vaz, Keith


Mowlam, Ms Marjorie
Walker, Sir Harold


Mudie, George
Walley, Ms Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N


Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)
Watson, Mike


Oakes, Gordon
Wicks, Malcolm


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Olner, Bill
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Neill, Martin
Wilson, Brian


Orme, Stanley
Winnick, David


Pearson, Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Pendry, Tom
Worthington, Tony


Pickthall, Colin
Wray, Jimmy


Pike, Peter L
Wright, Dr Tony


Pope, Greg



Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. Simon Hughes.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Baldry, Tony


Amess, David
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Robert (Harrogate)


Arbuthnot, James
Bates, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Batiste, Spencer






Beggs, Roy
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bendall, Vivian
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, John
Fowler, Sir Norman


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gallie, Phil


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Sir Graham
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brooke, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gorst, Sir John


Budgen, Nicholas
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Butcher, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Peter
Gummer, John


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Hamilton, Sir Archibald


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carttiss, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cash, William
Hannam, Sir John


Channon, Paul
Hargreaves, Andrew


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Harris, David


Churchill, Mr
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Clappison, James
Hawkins, Nick


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hawksley, Warren


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, Jerry


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heald, Oliver


Coe, Sebastian
Heath, Sir Edward


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Congdon, David
Hendry, Charles


Conway, Derek
Heseltine, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hicks, Sir Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Higgins, Sir Terence


Cope, Sir John
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)


Couchman, James
Horam, John


Cran, James
Hordern, Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howell, David (Guildf'd)


Curry, David
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Davis, David (Boothfeny)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunter, Andrew


Devlin, Tim
Hurd, Douglas


Dicks, Terry
Jack, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)


Dover, Den
Jessel, Toby


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Jones, Robert B (W Herts)


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
King, Tom


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Kynoch, George


Evennett, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Faber, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Fabricant, Michael
Legg, Barry


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Leigh, Edward


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fishburn, Dudley
Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)





Lidington, David
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Lilley, Peter
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lord, Michael
Sims, Sir Roger


Luff, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacGregor, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfl'd)


MacKay, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Spencer, Sir Derek


Madel, Sir David
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marlow, Tony
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stanley, Sir John


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stephen, Michael


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Allan


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Mellor, David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Sweeney, Walter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sykes, John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moate, Sir Roger
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Monro, Sir Hector
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moss, Malcolm
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Thomason, Roy


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Newton, Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Norris, Steve
Tracey, Richard


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Tredinnick, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Trend, Michael


Ottaway, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Page, Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Paice, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Viggers, Peter


Patten, John
Waldegrave, William


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waller, Gary


Pickles, Eric
Ward, John


Porter, David
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Portillo, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Powell, William (Corby)
Watts, John


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Sir John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Renton, Tim
Whittingdale, John


Richards, Rod
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Robathan, Andrew
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Wolfson, Mark


Rowe, Andrew
Wood, Timothy


Rumbold, Dame Angela
Yeo, Tim


Ryder, Richard
Young, Sir George


Sackville, Tom



Sainsbury, Sir Timothy
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, David (Dover)
Mr. Bowen Wells and


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Roger Knapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 12

REDUCTION IN CLASS SIZES

'( )—(1) After section 355 of the Education Act 1996 there shall be inserted—
Reduction in class sizes

( )—(1) Each local education authority shall determine, and notify the Secretary of State as to targets for the maximum number of pupils in classes in maintained schools in its area with respect to such years and year groups as the Secretary of State may specify.
(2) The Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of securing reductions in numbers in classes.
(3) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local education authorities, or to governing bodies or headteachers of maintained schools, for the purposes of this section.".'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 12 presents us again with what was new clause 90, which was debated and withdrawn in Committee on 16 January. It seeks to allow the phasing in of our proposals for reduction in class sizes, whose good sense I hope the Government will recognise. It is framed as an insert in the curriculum section of the Education Act 1996, to follow section 355. Section 355 deals with "teaching groups", which is the only definition of classes of which I am aware. The new clause attempts to focus debate on the curriculum benefits of smaller class sizes, and notes the role of governors and heads—who control class sizes—in enabling guidance to be issued to them as well as to local education authorities.
As I have said, the issue was debated at length in Committee. Indeed, it has been debated at length in the House and elsewhere on many occasions. The arguments are simple. All other things being equal, teachers teach better and children learn more easily if teachers have to work with fewer children at a time.
I note that no one dissents at this stage from that statement of the obvious. Common sense says that it must be so. Academic research proves it, and parents, governors and teachers believe it. Children themselves know it to be true. The Government alone, like the people who persecuted Galileo, persist in insisting that the educational world is flat.
Of course, all things are not equal—certainly not the Government's attitude towards education in different parts of the maintained sector. An excellent teacher will do well for a class of 40, even if he or she is acutely aware that he or she could have done much better with 20 children at a time. The poor teacher will fail to communicate and engage with a class of 15, although it is likely that confrontation with 35 could lead to total failure.
Devoid of rational argument and adrift from common sense, the Minister has persistently sought to compare the best with the worst in teaching, as if that somehow proved that class size made no difference. In Standing Committee, he led us down the byways of individual Members' decisions about their children's education. I thought that I would mention that before the Minister does. [Interruption.] He can be my guest and raise it at any stage that he sees fit, but for all his typically robust performance on that occasion—presumably he will repeat it tonight—few would be persuaded by his tortured logic. "Tautology" should be his middle name.
All things are not equal in another sense. The assisted places scheme allows a small minority of people to buy into smaller class sizes at the taxpayer's expense, but it is not just the anonymous taxpayer who pays for that. The privilege is bought at the expense of every child who suffers from the inflated class sizes that are imposed on the public sector by this parsimonious Administration. That is one inequality that Labour can—and, when in office, will—rectify.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Islington has class sizes of only 15 and it does not do a good job, so people go out of Islington into other boroughs?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady suggests that class sizes are not relevant to the way in which standards rise or fall in any given school. She may—or may not—understand that other factors are involved, but class size is important in raising standards for all children. That is the perceived wisdom in education, and I would far sooner go with that perceived wisdom than with the hon. Lady and her somewhat idiosyncratic views on education.
In Standing Committee, the Minister produced some odd figures that purported to show that little would be saved from abandoning the assisted places scheme. His calculations relied on some strange assumptions about education's cost. The independent work that we have commissioned through the National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales shows that the likely savings from phasing out the scheme will allow us to make real progress in reducing class sizes in the lifetime of the first Parliament of the incoming Labour Government, but, even if the Minister were correct, our policy would still be right.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If an incoming Labour Government did abolish the assisted places scheme, the saving would fund one teacher for every seven schools.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I have of course heard that soundbite before, but if the hon. Lady cares to consider the way in which the new clause has been constructed, she will find that it is a matter for consultation across a given area, so that all stakeholders can have a say in how class sizes can be reduced.
Resources are restricted, but it is fundamentally wrong anyway for significant sums of public money to be spent on buying an advantage for the few, which the Government perversely and persistently deny to the many. That does not take into account the arguments that I am sure will be advanced, certainly by Conservative Members, about the dead weight cost that is inherent in schemes such as the assisted places scheme.
It is far more sensible for education funding—the incoming Labour Government will realise this at the earliest opportunity—to be put into the reduction of class sizes rather than to allow the current 35,000 or 36,000 or so pupils to be taken out—or, as one hon. Member put it in our debate last night, to escape from comprehensive schools and from the maintained sector generally.
I therefore hope that good sense will obtain on Report, and that the Government will finally bow to the inevitable. There is a better way to spend the money that goes on the


assisted places scheme. The most appropriate way is the Labour way, of dedicating that resourcing to reducing class sizes.
A huge number of children are in classes of over 30 pupils—over 20,000 children are taught in classes of over 40—so the new clause is the way forward in education.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman appears to be repeating himself about the reduction in class sizes. Does he not realise that the average cost of an assisted place is less than the amount that is put into the education budget for a place in any inner-London school?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It is nonsense to propagate the myth that an assisted place costs less than a place in a typical maintained school, but the point is that the sum total of that money can, as the new clause suggests, be dedicated through grants to ensuring that class sizes are reduced for the many, rather than being an advantage proffered to the few.

Mr. John Gunnell: I back my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle). The new clause does not explicitly say anything about the assisted places scheme, but my hon. Friend is correct to point out that the new clause states:
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of securing reductions in numbers in classes.
The Minister knows that the Labour party has explicitly said that money from the assisted places scheme will be used to reduce class sizes for primary school pupils. We must recognise that the reason for doing that is that we believe that it is proper for that money to be used for the benefit of the many, not of the few. It may serve some people well, but the assisted places scheme reaches a limited number of people. Having a policy that potentially affects everyone in a primary school is clearly a far more equitable distribution of those resources.
It is obvious to everyone except Conservative Members that the size of a class is a factor in the performance of pupils in that class.

Mr. Ian Bruce: So is Labour going to put some more money in?

Mr. Gunnell: The hon. Gentleman intervenes from a sedentary position. If he wants to make a point, he can do so. Is he anxious to make that point?

Mr. James Pawsey: We are listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech, and we are enjoying it.

Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is enjoying my speech.
Let me put it like this. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) says, "Put more money in." Obviously, that money must come from somewhere. On every spending pledge that the Labour party has made, it has been explicit about where the money comes from.
That is why the myth that I have heard repeated again and again at Prime Minister's Question Time—that the Labour party has made £30 billion of election pledges—

is complete nonsense. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) knows that that myth is complete nonsense and a fiction. We have made it clear where the money is coming from in our pledges, and we intend to continue to do that. The Government are on a false trail if they wish to label us as spendthrifts. We have made it clear that education is a priority. It is a priority for us to reduce class sizes in primary schools.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has said that, if the ultimate disaster happened and it got into power, the Labour party in government would not be spendthrift. Why, when providing a given level of service anywhere in the country, do Labour local authorities cost much more than Conservative local authorities?

Mr. Gunnell: That is a contentious statement. If the hon. Gentleman takes into account the spending and grants per head in Westminster, he will find it very hard to take the view that Labour authorities consistently spend more than Conservative authorities. Labour authorities are certainly more concerned with the level of public services that they provide. I do not think that his thesis holds water.
There is a popular belief, which the Minister apparently does not share, that smaller class sizes mean better pupil performance and a better life for teachers. Advertisements for almost every private sector school boast small classes. Why would they advertise that their classes were small if they did not think that it was attractive to parents and that it improved the school's educational performance? They know that small classes are an important selling point. It is not part of Labour's argument that such schools are not offering a good education to their pupils. Class size is one of the factors that enables them to do so.
I taught in a United Nations school that was neither public nor private; it was private to the citizens of New York but public to those for whom it was set up: children of people at the UN. Like most schools of its sort, it advertised—although it did not really need to, because it was known throughout the UN—that its class sizes were reasonable, and certainly a good deal smaller than the 30 about which we have talked.
Everyone knows that class size is important, but it is not the only important factor. The primary school in the greatest demand in my constituency has classes—certainly on entry—of as many as 39 pupils. I am sure that people at that school wish that the classes were smaller. The school's quality is due in part to the staff, in part to the facilities and in part to the area in which it is situated. It is a very popular school, and many therefore want to go to it.
I ask the Minister to name research—

Mr. Forth: I will.

Mr. Gunnell: He might find some research that shows that other factors are very important, but he will not find any that shows that class size has no effect on pupil performance. Popular belief is backed by evidence and research. Much research on class size has been conducted in the United States, and it all points to the fact that reducing class numbers is relevant to pupils' progress.


Class size is also a factor in the ability of staff to cope and give individual attention to their pupils. A consistent stream of evidence points in favour of smaller class sizes.
In choosing as its priority in education the reduction of class sizes in primary schools, the Labour party has taken a very wise step, which is fully in tune with public opinion. One of the concerns expressed among people when talking about their local school is about the amount of attention that their child receives. It is common sense that it is not possible to give the same attention to each child in a class of 40 as it is to those in a class of 30 or fewer. The fact is self-evident, backed by research and condoned by almost everybody in the education system; yet Conservative Members seem to think that it is of little or no importance.
I look forward to hearing the Minister cite research that demonstrates that class size is irrelevant to pupil performance. I have not argued—and would not—that class size is the only factor. There are plenty of others—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you have been following the debate very carefully. I was always brought up to believe that there was something called tedious repetition. I am sure that you will assist the House if it comes about.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is for the Chair to decide.

Mr. Gunnell: The reason why we have spent so much time debating class size is that we consider that it is very important. It is clear to the public that one of the messages on education that the Labour party has sought to get across is that the start that children get is fundamental to their continued progress in the system. There is no doubt that pupil performance is affected by class size. I look forward to the Minister demonstrating that it is not.

Mr. Forth: We have come to recognise that Labour Members believe that, if they peddle a shibboleth often enough, people might begin to believe it. I shall explain why not all parents seem to have been persuaded of the much-repeated shibboleth about class size, and I shall name names. Before I do so, I note that, at the very least, we have seen Labour Members backing off from some of the wilder claims that they used to make on the subject. The wording of the new clause is modest, to put it mildly.
Labour Members are saying that there will be a determination of targets for maximum numbers of pupils in classes and that
The Secretary of State may make grants to local education authorities for the purposes of
reducing numbers. They omit to point out that, unless they propose to change the whole system of education funding, giving an LEA money does not guarantee that it will spend it on the named objective. We can all think of many LEAs that have not spent their education money in anything like the way that was intended.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I am sure that the Minister will go on to give us a very full list of authorities that—he will allege—have misspent their funding. I refer him to Subsection (2) of the new clause, which says specifically that any

funding would take the form of grants. Such funding would not be subsumed in the generality of education funding.

Mr. Forth: If the hon. Gentleman is seeking to subvert the long-established principle that, as we have always recognised, elected, accountable LEAs should make their own decisions on their priorities or that schools should make their own decisions on how they spend their money—whether on more teachers, buildings, books, equipment, or whatever—it marks a significant departure for Labour Members.
The new clause contains the implication—if not the certainty—that Labour Members now believe that they know, class by class throughout the nation, how many pupils should sit in front of a teacher in a classroom, the better to be taught. That is such a significant departure from what we have heard in the past that I suspect that some Labour Members may not be prepared to support it. I am sure that most of my hon. Friends would not, either.
Under pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that he believes that, if the assisted places scheme were abolished at some unspecified time during the period of office of the next Labour Government, some progress may begin to be made on some reduction in the numbers in some classes. I paraphrase his words only slightly.
That is perhaps a more honest statement than those of the past. The implication in the past was that, if one abolished the assisted places scheme, the alleged problem of oversized classes would be resolved. Now we are hearing a rather clearer idea that, since there would not be anything like enough the money that was needed as a result of the scheme's abolition, Labour could not in any case meet the target.
The only correction that I would make to the figures given in the very useful intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster is that, according to my figures, the abolition of the assisted places scheme would provide one extra teacher for every 90 schools. That provides some idea of how useless it would be to abolish the scheme.
The hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) challenged me on the subject of research. Professor Mortimore—from no less than the university of London institute of education—has said that the impact of class size on education quality is
at best not clear cut and at worst contradictory".
The American research that he quoted is equally contradictory. Not only could the Americans not sustain the very small class sizes in their pilot projects—I know of no evidence that they have done so statewide, let alone nationwide—but they believe that other forms of intervention are generally much more likely to be cost-effective.
Time and again, we have heard from Labour Members that parents believe that smaller classes provide better education. I shall cite two pieces of evidence that I believe contradict that oft-repeated statement.
First, we know that parents who have a choice of school for their children prefer that they attend a popular school that provides an excellent education, even if it is over-subscribed and the choice means that their children


will attend large classes. Moreover, parents choose those schools knowing that the attendance of their children will further increase class size. They also choose those schools in preference to ones that may be just down the road—such as, for example, Hackney Downs, which was so awful that it had to be closed down, although it had a pupil-teacher ratio of 8:1 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) pointed out, spent more per pupil than the assisted places scheme ever could.
Labour Members should think carefully about the second piece of evidence. They seem to be insulting the intelligence of the Leader of the Opposition, and challenging the wisdom of his parental choice. As the House will know, class sizes in Islington—the borough in which he did not choose to educate his child—are smaller than those at the London Oratory school, which he did choose. If Labour Members require any evidence that parental choice contradicts their entire argument, they need only ask their own leader. I invite them to do so, and I invite the House to reject new clause 12.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I was quite taken by the Minister's Freudian slip about the "the next Labour Government"—which will not be long in coming, to put our policies into effect. He was very quick to correct the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) about one teacher for every seven schools, but he made no attempt to correct the figures provided by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), who said something very different about the cost of places in the assisted places scheme compared to those in the maintained sector.
In Committee, the Minister dismissed the Tennessee Star research and said that it was inconsequential and covered conditions in America, and in only one American state. He attempted to make the same point by quoting Professor Mortimore, and said that the impact of class size is at best unproven. However, research from the university of London institute of education suggests quite the reverse. The Minister knows that, for every academic prepared to make one argument, it is possible to find another to argue the opposite.
What is the real test on the matter? In his reply, the Minister referred to the real test, which is parental choice and how that choice is exercised. There is no doubt what Conservative Members choose to do. They choose the independent sector, which uses smaller class sizes as one of its strongest selling points.
The Minister is a great advocate of choice and is determined to support parents' choice to opt for the independent sector—I do not disagree with that exercise of choice, for their children; if that is how people choose to spend their money, let them do so—but he is not prepared to offer the same choice to parents who say in overwhelming numbers that they would like smaller classes for their children. They do not have that choice, because places are not provided.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kilfoyle: No; I am conscious of the time.

Mr. Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman mentioned me by name and said that I was wrong, but he has not given any figures to substantiate his claim.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman is responsible for his own speech, as he knows.

Mr. Kilfoyle: As for the choice made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), can the

Minister tell me the name of any Prime Minister with children in the maintained sector—as the next Prime Minister surely will? The Minister cannot produce an example. The Leader of the Opposition has made that commitment to the maintained sector.
We have repeatedly heard comments—true cant—from Conservative Members about the choices and children of Labour Members. In this debate and in Committee, the Minister has advocated choice. I am surprised that he does not now support the choice made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, who chose the maintained over the independent sector.
The Minister's opening comments on the wording of new clause 12 were not critical but damned with faint praise. He said that, compared with previous comments made by Labour Members, the wording is "modest". If it is so modest, I am sure that the Government will find it in their heart to support it—to ensure that parents can choose smaller class sizes, which they so evidently want.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 295.

Division No. 56]
[6.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Corbett, Robin


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Allen, Graham
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cummings, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ashton, Joseph
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Austin-Walker, John
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Battle, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Chris (Littleborough)


Beggs, Roy
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Beith, A J
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Tony
Denham, John


Bennett, Andrew F
Dixon, Don


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Berry, Roger
Donohoe, Brian H


Betts, Clive
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blair, Tony
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blunkett, David
Eastham, Ken


Boateng, Paul
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Keith
Etherington, Bill


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Fatchett, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Faulds, Andrew


Burden, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Caborn, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Callaghan, Jim
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Fraser, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Campbell-Savours, D N
Galbraith, Sam


Canavan, Dennis
Galloway, George


Cann, Jamie
Gapes, Mike


Chidgey, David
Garrett, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
George, Bruce


Clapham, Michael
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gilbert, Dr John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Connarty, Michael
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Meacher, Michael


Grocott, Bruce
Meale, Alan


Gunnell, John
Michael, Alun


Hain, Peter
Milburn, Alan


Hall, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Hanson, David
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Hardy, Peter
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Morgan, Rhodri


Harvey, Nick
Morley, Elliot


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Heppell, John
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Hinchliffe, David
Mudie, George


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mullin, Chris


Hoey, Kate
Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Oakes, Gordon


Home Robertson, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hood, Jimmy
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Orme, Stanley


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Pendry, Tom


Hoyle, Doug
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Simon (Southward)
Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Illsley, Eric
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Radice, Giles


Jamieson, David
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Greville
Raynsford, Nick


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Rendel, David


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Kaufman, Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Alan
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S
Sheldon, Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Peter


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Smith, Chris (Islington S)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Livingstone, Ken
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)
Snape, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Sir David


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stevenson, George


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Dr Gavin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sutcliffe, Gerry


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


MacShane, Denis
Thurnham, Peter


McWilliam, John
Timms, Stephen


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Maddock, Mrs Diana
Touhig, Don


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Trickett, Jon


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tyler, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)
Walker, Sir Harold


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Ms Joan


Maxton, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Wicks, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony


Wigley, Dafydd
Wray, Jimmy


Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Wright, Dr Tony


Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Joe Benton and


Winnick, David
Mr. Kevin Hughes.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Day, Stephen


Aitken, Jonathan
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Alexander, Richard
Devlin, Tim


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Dicks, Terry


Amess, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Ancram, Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arbuthnot, James
Dover, Den


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Duncan, Alan


Ashby, David
Duncan Smith, Iain


Atkins, Robert
Dunn, Bob


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Eggar, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Elletson, Harold


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Emery, Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)


Bates, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Bendall, Vivian
Evennett, David


Beresford, Sir Paul
Faber, David


Biffen, John
Fabricant, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Booth, Hartley
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boswell, Tim
Fishburn, Dudley


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Forth, Eric


Bowis, John
Fowler, Sir Norman


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Brazier, Julian
Freeman, Roger


Bright, Sir Graham
French, Douglas


Brooke, Peter
Fry, Sir Peter


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Gale, Roger


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gallie, Phil


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gardiner, Sir George


Budgen, Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Gill, Christopher


Butcher, John
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Butterfill, John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carrington, Matthew
Gorst, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Churchill, Mr
Gummer, John


Clappison, James
Hague, William


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hannam, Sir John


Coe, Sebastian
Hargreaves, Andrew


Congdon, David
Harris, David


Conway, Derek
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Hawkins, Nick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hayes, Jerry


Cope, Sir John
Heald, Oliver


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heath, Sir Edward


Couchman, James
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cran, James
Hendry, Charles


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Heseltine, Michael


Curry, David
Hicks, Sir Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Higgins, Sir Terence


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)






Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Pawsey, James


Horam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hordern, Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Porter, David


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Portillo, Michael


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Tim


Hurd, Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Roberts, Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Dame Angela


King, Tom
Ryder, Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, Sir David
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Kynoch, George
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Sir Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Speed, Sir Keith


Lilley, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Luff, Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Sir John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Steen, Anthony


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stephen, Michael


Madel, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stewart, Allan


Malone, Gerald
Streeter, Gary


Mans, Keith
Sumberg, David


Marland, Paul
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Thomason, Roy


Mellor, David
Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexl'yh'th)


Monro, Sir Hector
Tracey, Richard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Sir Cranley
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Watts, John


Patten, John
Wheeler, Sir John


Pattie, Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Sir Raymond





Whittingdale, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wiggin, Sir Jerry
Wood, Timothy


Wilkinson, John
Yeo, Tim


Willetts, David
Young, Sir George


Wilshire, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Mr. Roger Knapman and


Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)
Mr. Bowen Wells.

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 13

LICENSING OF TEACHER AGENCIES

'( )—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulation make provision—

(a) for the licensing of any business or agency supplying short-term or temporary teaching staff;
(b) for the regular inspection of any such business or agency by persons appointed by her for that purpose;
(c) as to the conduct of any such business or agency.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulation provide for amounts to be payable in respect of any person seeking a licence under this section.'.—[Mr. Kilfoyle.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

Mr. Kilfoyle: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 53, in clause 63, page 47, line 11, leave out 'or'.
No. 54, in page 47, line 12, at end insert
'or
(d) any other person who arranges, whether under contract or otherwise, for another person to be a short-term or temporary teacher'.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall be extremely brief because the clause is self-evidently sensible. It has arisen from the assiduous work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) in her attempts to ensure that the Government regulate agencies to prevent them abusing their position by, for example, accepting on to their books people debarred from active teaching because they are on list 99. I commend the new clause to the House.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I, too, shall be brief because I know that other issues have to be debated.
As I said in Committee, I warmly welcome clause 63. When I introduced the Protection and Education of Children Bill, 39 Conservative Members voted against it, including three who considered this Bill in Committee. I am therefore delighted that the Conservatives have seen fit to change their mind and take this opportunity to start the regulation process. I also thank the Under-Secretary for her letter in response to issues that I raised in Committee.
The regulation of teacher agencies is important. From the data that we have, we know that probably one in 15 to one in 20 classes are currently taught by supply teachers. A survey that I carried out in the first three weeks of the autumn term showed that three out of four schools in London use supply teacher agencies. It is because such agencies are here to stay that we must ensure that they


operate correctly. As I have said before, many reputable agencies do a good job, but my survey showed that a third of the schools that we contacted had experienced problems with supply agencies.
Clause 63 insists that all supply teachers meet the same standards and undergo the same checks as permanent teachers—that means medical and police checks, checks on their qualification and investigation of whether they are on list 99. My real concern, and the reason why I urge Conservative Members to support the new clause, is whether clause 63 will work in practice. I shall explain that concern.
Under clause 63 as drafted, the onus rests with the head teacher or the supply teacher. In practice, a head teacher arrives at school at about 7.30 am and discovers that a member of staff is off sick. In an hour and a half, that head teacher has to find a supply teacher. He rings a supply teacher agency but, in the short time available, he cannot verify that the supply teacher has the necessary qualifications or has undergone the necessary checks.
Nor is it sufficient to put the onus on the supply teacher. Many supply teachers come from Australia or New Zealand. They spend only six months to a year working in this country before moving on, and the temporary nature of their work in Britain means that there is no incentive for them to ensure that they comply with the requirements of the regulatory framework as set out in clause 63.
We therefore need to regulate and regularly inspect the agencies involved. The good agencies have recognised that. Agencies such as Timeplan and Capstan have said that they are willing to pay for the regulation themselves, so there would be no cost to the public purse. Regulation of the agencies is a simple way to regulate supply teachers properly.
The agencies, which are employment agencies, have been subject to deregulation under this Government, so anyone with a mobile telephone and a car can set up a supply teacher agency—many people do just that. While carrying out my research, I came across an agency in south Glamorgan that changed from supplying crane drivers to supplying teachers. Another had been supplying construction workers, drivers and secretaries and then supplied teachers.
One reputable agency set up a branch in Bromley, but was contacted by the regulatory authorities and the Department of Trade and Industry only when the DTI tracked it down, having seen an advertisement in the paper saying that the agency was in the business of supplying teachers.
Inevitably, some agencies cut corners. I talked to an ex-member of staff of one agency who told me that although the agency did take up references on teachers, it put them straight into the filing cabinet and did not check them. Another agency that I came across accepted a teacher, whom I shall not name, who had been rejected by another agency. It accepted her even though her reference said:
Ms … appeared to be a very needy person who seemed somewhat unstable. I am therefore unable to recommend her to you.

Despite that reference, the less reputable agency placed her in a school, and problems subsequently arose.

Mrs. Gillan: Does the hon. Lady know whether that incident was reported, as I suggested in Committee that it should be? I made it clear that the necessary mechanisms were in place.

Ms Hodge: I thank the Under-Secretary for that intervention; I shall come to the relevant mechanisms in a moment. I do not know whether that particular incident was reported, but I shall take soundings and find out.
The real problem is that the prime concern of many agencies is for the bottom line. For example, Recruit plc advertised, "Book 10 teachers days and get one free". Another said, "Book before Christmas and get £10 off". The worst case, which I mentioned in Committee, involved an agency that had set up a new office in Manchester. The manager went to a school to attempt to drum up business, but the head teacher found that the manager was on list 99.
I know that the Under-Secretary is bound to say that the Department of Trade and Industry carries out routine inspections. In her letter to me, she said that in future they would be focused on teacher supply agencies, for which I am grateful, but the current system is rather hit and miss. It deals largely with complaints made after the event—it is a question of too little, too late.
I hope that Ministers agree that the new clause would place on the statute book a foolproof system that is simple to operate and which would involve no cost to the public purse. I therefore hope that they will accept the new clause. I am delighted that the Government have gone as far as they have, and I simply wish to urge them to go one step further to regulate properly the supply teachers who play an important role in teaching many children in many of our schools.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I must declare an interest as an adviser to the Federation of Recruitment and Employment Services and as someone who ran an active employment agency and still owns an employment agency that is not active. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), who has now been fully briefed on the issue, should continue to try to turn the tables on employment agencies. It is well known that the hon. Lady, when she was the leader of a certain council, presided over a situation in which that council did not vet teachers.

Mr. Terry Dicks: Social workers.

Mr. Bruce: I am sorry—social workers. As a result, the wrong social workers were employed. Employment agencies that want to supply teachers currently have to go to the local education authority to get vetting done, because the agencies do not have access to the information. Many local education authorities, especially in the north of England, have tried to stop agencies vetting.
The industry wants to vet teachers and will do so, and that is why the Government's proposals are so warmly supported by the industry. The Bill will allow vetting and ensure that supply teachers are pre-vetted before head teachers ring at 8 o'clock in the morning for a supply


teacher. The new clause would simply do what the Employment Agencies Act 1973 did. In other words, it would involve a whole rigmarole meaning that it would take two or three months to decide whether somebody could start work, and it would provide no extra safeguards for the individual. Agencies have to do a proper job of vetting people and will do that without any recourse to the new clause.

Ms Hodge: All the reputable agencies to which I have talked wish the new clause to be incorporated in the Bill. The new clause would provide not for the odd spot check, but for a proper regulatory framework with registration and inspection, paid for by the agencies. The reputable agencies want that because it would give us a foolproof system.

Mr. Bruce: The hon. Lady need not make her speech again. I oppose the new clause.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) for his contribution and for the welcome that he has given to clause 63. It seeks to close a technical loophole in the legislation on qualifications, health and misconduct that did not previously cover staff, whether teaching staff or others working with young people in schools and colleges, who did not have contracts of employment.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) welcomed clause 63, and she withdrew her amendments in Committee after an amicable debate. As most of the points were covered in Committee, I shall merely refer hon. Members to the report of the Committee from column 626 onwards. However, I wish to make a couple of further points.
A licence is no guarantee of future good conduct. The majority of serious breaches of the legislation are when licences were issued by licensed agencies. Instead, we have put in place a power to prohibit persons from carrying on business in employment agencies when there has been misconduct or for other sufficient reasons. I can tell the House that the employment agency standards inspectorate has plans to visit some 100 agencies dealing with teacher employment in the next six months, and the Department has also arranged for information on the employment agency standards team's powers, including the number of its national inquiry line on which any problems can be reported, to be included in "Schools Update". That will be issued to all schools in the spring and will reinforce information already contained in circular 7/96 on the use of supply teachers.
I shall repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Barking. If any hon. Member believes that there have been breaches of the conduct regulations or that other issues need examination, they should take up the matter with my hon. Friend the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs at the Department of Trade and Industry, who is directly responsible for overseeing the work of employment agencies.
Clause 63 will empower the Secretary of State to impose regulations that will be binding on all parties involved, including agencies. We take the matter seriously and we have acted. I therefore reject the new clause.

Question put and negatived.

New clause 5

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT LAWFUL WITH PARENTAL CONSENT

'For section 548 (no right to give corporal punishment), section 549 (interpretation of section 548) and section 550 (no avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school) of the Education Act 1996, the following sections shall be substituted—

"Corporal punishment lawful with parental consent

548.—(1) Where a pupil to whom this subsection applies is required on disciplinary grounds to be excluded from school for a fixed period, the school may make arrangements in accordance with subsection (2) for him to be given corporal punishment at his school as an alternative to that exclusion, and such punishment shall not be unlawful if his parent's consent to it has been given in accordance with subsection (2) and if the conditions set out in subsection (6) are satisfied.
(2) After the decision has been made to exclude the pupil the school may contact the parent to indicate that instead of and as an alternative to that exclusion, with the parent's consent, the pupil may be given corporal punishment, and if the parent indicates his consent in the form of a signed parental declaration the corporal punishment may be given instead of excluding the pupil.
(3) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to—

(a) any pupil for whom education is provided—

(i) at a school maintained by a local education authority,
(ii) at a special school not so maintained, or
(iii) at a grant-maintained school;

(b) any pupil for whom education is provided at an independent school—

(i) which is maintained or assisted by a Minister of the Crown (including a school of which a government department is a proprietor) or is assisted by a local education authority, and
(ii) which falls within a prescribed class;

(c) any pupil for whom education is provided by a local education authority otherwise than at a school; and
(d) any pupil who is an assisted person for the purposes of this paragraph and for whom education is provided at an independent school not falling within paragraph (b) above.

(4) A pupil is an assisted person for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) if—

(a) he holds an assisted place under the scheme operated by the Secretary of State under section 479;
(b) any of the fees or expenses payable in respect of his attendance at school are paid by—

(i) the Secretary of State under section 491, or
(ii) a local education authority under section 517, or
(iii) the funding authority or a local education authority under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 4;

(c) any of the fees payable in respect of his attendance at school are paid by a local education authority under section 518; or
(d) he falls within a prescribed category of persons.

(5) The Secretary of State may prescribe, for the purposes of subsection (4)(d), one or more categories of persons who appear to him to be persons in respect of whom any fees are paid out of public funds.
(6) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) are:

(a) that the head teacher of the school must have previously determined, and made generally known within the school and published in a form prescribed by the Secretary of State that corporal punishment is one of the measures that may be taken with a view to regulating the conduct of pupils;


(b) that the punishment must be given by the head teacher or by a member of the staff who is a senior teacher specifically or generally authorised by him for the purpose;
(c) that in addition to the member of the staff giving the corporal punishment, a female member of the staff must be present when corporal punishment is being given to a female pupil and a male member of the staff must be present when corporal punishment is being given to a male pupil;
(d) that the punishment must be reasonable in all the circumstances;
(e) that the reasons for the punishment must be set out in writing and given to the parent before the punishment takes place, and those reasons shall also be recorded in a register which, in accordance with regulations made under this section, is to be maintained by the school and open to inspection, and a parent shall have the right to see a copy of every entry relating to his own child on giving reasonable notice of his desire to do so; and
(f) that the register shall also record details of the nature of the corporal punishment, along with the names of those present when it is given.

(7) In determining for the purposes of subsection (6)(d) whether a punishment is reasonable, the following matters in particular shall be taken into account—

(a) whether the punishment constitutes a proportionate punishment in the circumstances of the case; and
(b) any special circumstances relevant to its imposition on the pupil which are known to the person imposing it (or of which he ought reasonably to be aware) including in particular—

(i) the pupil's age,
(ii) any special educational needs he may have,
(iii) the pupil's state of health, and
(iv) the pupil's disciplinary record.

(8) If the parent does not consent to corporal punishment as required by subsection (2) the period of the exclusion referred to in subsections (1) and (2) shall not be affected.
(9) Section 572, which provides for the methods by which notices may be served under this Act, does not preclude a notice from being given to a pupil's parent under this section by any other effective method.
(10) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to any pupil to whom subsections (1) and (2) apply by or on the authority of a member of the staff and the requirements of this section have not been met, giving the punishment cannot be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
(11) A person does not commit an offence by reason of any conduct relating to a pupil which would, apart from this section, be justified on the ground that it is done in pursuance of a right exercisable by a member of the staff by virtue of his position as such.
(12) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given to any pupil by or on the authority of a member of the staff, giving the punishment cannot be justified if it was inhuman or degrading.
(13) In this section—

'parental declaration' means a declaration to be signed by a parent indicating his consent to the corporal punishment.
'exclusion' means exclusion in accordance with—

(a) the provisions of this Act in the case of pupils who are not assisted persons for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) above; or
(b) the custom and practice of the school in the case of a pupil who is an assisted person for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) above.

'excluded' means excluded in accordance with—


(a) the provisions of this Act in the case of pupils who are not assisted persons for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) above; or
(b) the custom and practice of the school in the case of a pupil who is an assisted person for the purposes of subsection (3)(d) above.

(14) The Secretary of State may make regulations under this section.

"Interpretation of section 548

549.—(1) A person is not to be taken for the purposes of section 548 as giving corporal punishment by virtue of anything done for reasons that include averting an immediate danger of personal injury to, or an immediate danger to the property of, any person (including the pupil concerned).
(2) In section 548 and this section 'pupil' does not include any person who has attained the age of 18.
(3) In section 548 'member of the staff' means—

(a) in relation to a person who is a pupil by reason of the provision of education for him at a school, any teacher who works at the school and any other person who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there; and
(b) in relation to a person who is a pupil by reason of the provision of education for him by a local education authority at a place other than a school, any teacher employed by the authority who works at that place and any other person employed by the authority who has lawful control or charge of the pupil and works there.

"No avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school etc.

550.—(1) A person shall not be debarred from receiving education (whether by refusing him admission to a school, suspending his attendance or otherwise) by reason of the fact that any provision of section 548 applies in relation to him or, if he were admitted, might so apply.
(2) Provided the decision to exclude referred to in section 548(1) complies with subsection (1) of this section, nothing in this section shall be interpreted as interfering with the ability of the school to proceed with that exclusion where the parental consent required by section 548(2) is not given.".'.—[Mr. Pawsey.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Pawsey: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Corporal punishment lawful in certain circumstances—
'For section 548 (no right to give corporal punishment), section 549 (interpretation of section 548) and section 550 (no avoidance of section 548 by refusing admission to school) of the Education Act 1996 the following section is substituted—

"Corporal punishment lawful in certain circumstances

548.—(1) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment has been given at school to a pupil to whom this section applies on disciplinary grounds, giving the punishment can be justified on the ground that it was done in pursuance of a right exercisable by the member of the staff by virtue of the authority given to him by the governing body in accordance with subsection (5) below.
(2) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment was given at a school to a pupil to whom this section applies on disciplinary grounds, his punishment shall not be held to be inhuman or degrading if it was given in accordance with the conditions set out in subsection (5) below.
(3) Where, in any proceedings, it is shown that corporal punishment was given at a school to a pupil to whom this section applies on disciplinary grounds, his punishment shall


not be held to be unlawful by virtue of the absence of his or his parent's consent to it if the conditions set out in subsection (5) are satisfied.
(4) This section applies to any pupil who is attending—

(a) a school maintained by a local education authority;
(b) a grant-maintained or grant-maintained special school; or
(c) a city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts.

(5) The conditions referred to in subsection (3) are—

(a) that the governing body and head teacher of the school must have previously determined, and made generally known within the school, that corporal punishment is one of the measures that may be taken with a view to regulating the conduct of pupils:
(b) that the punishment must be imposed by the head teacher or by another teacher at the school specifically or generally authorised by the governing body for the purpose; and
(c) that the punishment must be reasonable in all the circumstances.

(6) In determining for the purposes of subsection (5)(c) whether a punishment is reasonable, the following matters in particular shall be taken into account—

(a) whether the punishment constitutes a proportionate punishment in the circumstances of the case; and
(b) any special circumstances relevant to its imposition on the pupil which are known to the person imposing it (or of which he ought reasonably to be aware) including in particular—

(i) the pupil's disciplinary record,
(ii) any special educational needs he may have,
(iii) the pupil's state of health, and
(iv) the pupil's age".'.

Mr. Pawsey: I shall briefly, and somewhat unusually, say what the new clause is not about. It is not about beating, thrashing, flogging or any of the other emotive phrases so beloved by those who oppose corporal punishment. New clause 5 is about discipline in schools and caning. It is, at all times, about reasonable punishment.
7.15 pm
For some time, I, like many hon. Members, have been concerned about the degree of disruption that is taking place in some of the nation's schools. That indiscipline is increasingly reflected in the number of exclusions that take place. Exclusion damages a child much more than one or two strokes of the cane. The effect of exclusion is to put a child outside the school gates, but then the very children who would gain most from being in the classroom and benefiting from education are thrust outside.
If the new clause was adopted, it would simply provide schools and teachers with an additional sanction that they might use in place of exclusions. Caning would be used only in serious cases of misdemeanour when otherwise exclusion would take place. In the case of an excluded child, the new clause would enable the school to contact a parent and to offer an alternative to the exclusion: that alternative would be caning. If the parent was agreeable to the child being caned, he or she would have to say so in writing.

Mr. Beggs: The hon. Gentleman referred to the damage that might be done to the child who was excluded. Does

he agree that damage is done indirectly to other children in the classroom, through the high cost of providing home tuition for the growing number of pupils who have been excluded?

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman clearly knows much about the subject and I congratulate him on the strength of his intervention. He makes a valid point and I am grateful to him.
Express permission from the parent would allow the school to cane the child instead of excluding him. Without that permission, caning could and would not take place. In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled on 13 November 1996, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said that nearly 9,000 exclusions took place in the school year 1994–95. That was the number of children permanently excluded from secondary schools. The House will note the word "permanently". How many youngsters were temporarily excluded? I frankly do not know and neither does the Department. However, I believe the figure to be substantial and, more to the point, it is growing. It has been argued that the number of pupils excluded is relatively small and I am sure that it is, but the House will understand that for the individual child who has been excluded, the figure is 100 per cent.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If no one in a school was prepared to cane, or if the licensed caner was away for the week, would there be a residual obligation on the local education authority to ensure that it had someone on its books who could pop round and flog people who needed it?

Mr. Pawsey: I am sorry that I gave way to my hon. Friend, whose intervention was not worthy of his intellect.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pawsey: No. I shall give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
Recently, I received a booklet produced by the Commission for Racial Equality, entitled, "Exclusion from School: the Public Cost". It sets out in considerable detail the cost involved in permanent exclusions, and maintains that one permanent exclusion, starting in 1994–95 and extending into 1995–96, would cost £5,134 a year.
To that figure, however, must be added the cost of the involvement of various agencies. For example, 20 per cent. of those who are excluded use social services, at a cost of about £1,100; 20 per cent. use the health service, which costs about £100; and 25 per cent. incur a cost to the criminal justice system of about £2,000 per case.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: Let me make it absolutely clear that my advocacy of corporal punishment owes nothing at all to hard cash. It is based on the truism that a pound funding exclusion is a pound less for schools—a pound less that we might use in the classroom. I believe, therefore, that exclusions can be regarded as a misuse of scarce


resources. That argument would apply most especially if a viable alternative to exclusion were available. The new clause offers that alternative.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in the number of exclusions dates from the time when corporal punishment was first removed? That should mean a financial cost benefit, but the real problem is the behaviour that precedes the exclusion; if we had a decent deterrent in schools, the appalling behaviour that leads to the exclusions would not happen.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a strong point, and I am grateful to him.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way presently.
I invite the House to consider for a moment the impact of both temporary and permanent exclusions. Clearly, there will be a substantial impact on the individual child. Exclusions substantially damage the child, who is being deprived of a reasonable education.
Several of the members of Standing Committee D, which considered the Bill for well over 40 hours, are present today. They will note that there is a fundamental difference between the new clause that I tabled in Committee and the one to which I am speaking at the moment. Principally, the reference to corporal punishment would no longer be contained in the school-parent contract. For a child to be caned, it would be necessary for the parent to give specific permission, in writing, for each individual offence.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Pawsey: I accept that a blanket provision, for the period of a child's school life, is simply not on. I now give way to my hon. and persistent Friend.

Mr. Rowe: I am most grateful. Has my hon. Friend been able to make any assessment of how many of the children excluded from school have the kind of parent who would accede to such a request, and of how effective corporal punishment would be on the damaged children who are most commonly excluded?

Mr. Pawsey: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is certainly yes. I have in front of me The Sunday Telegraph of 3 November 1996. The headline clearly says, "Bring back the cane, say voters" and the article tells us that 68 per cent. support corporal punishment. That 68 per cent. includes parents who are prepared to let their children receive corporal punishment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: Let me make a little progress.
The new clause lays down rules for the way in which corporal punishment would be administered, in line with case law and opinions given under the European convention on human rights. As the parent will have given

permission and the punishment is at all times to be reasonable, European law would not be breached. It is also worth recalling and repeating that at no time has the European Court of Human Rights found or ruled against the United Kingdom in matters of corporal punishment in schools.
The new clause would ensure that teachers could smack a delinquent child without any risk of civil prosecution, and removes the risk of parents changing their mind when learning that their child might be subject to corporal punishment. Let me make it absolutely clear that the new clause is permissive, not prescriptive.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is being a little mealy-mouthed, on the basis that a good, sound thrashing is to the advantage of the child and of the local authority that pays for that child? Will he be a little more robust in his arguments in the remainder of his speech?

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful advice, but I do not intend to take it. I am convinced that I am being sufficiently robust; I am spelling out in some detail the fact that the new clause is responsible and would improve the quality and standard of state education in our schools.
The new clause is permissive, not prescriptive. It does not force or require schools to adopt corporal punishment. It merely provides corporal punishment as an added sanction that might be available in cases of severe misdemeanour. It should be remembered that the caning would at all times be reasonable.
A common theme running through the Government's education reforms has been devolving additional power to individual schools. Conservative Members do not believe that all schools should be identical, with identical punishments or identical administrations. We want choice and diversity.
If some schools decide to accept the principle of corporal punishment in place of exclusions, so be it; they are not forced to do so: the choice lies with the individual school. The introduction of the cane would be a decision taken by the head teacher, the governors and the parents. They would decide what was best for their children and their school. The new clause simply gives added choice to individual schools.
Recently, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been much concerned about the increase in the number of premature teacher retirements. I suspect that one of the reasons for those retirements is the indiscipline in some classes. I believe—with, I am sure, the full support of my right hon. and hon. Friends—that there are few who enter the teaching profession to grow rich. Most teachers enter the profession from a sense of genuine vocation and because of the satisfaction that they derive from imparting knowledge. That satisfaction must be much reduced when a teacher is faced with a disruptive, undisciplined and at times violent class.

Mr. Harry Greenway: From my 23 years' experience in the teaching profession, including 12 years at a comprehensive with 1,100 boys at King's Cross, I believe that there is a place for moderate and reasonable corporal punishment, but I have not yet understood from my hon. Friend's argument how the new


clause would work. Would corporal punishment be an alternative to every possible exclusion order, or would it apply only in particular cases relating to particular offences? We cannot pick and choose: pupils would look for consistency, and the alternative should be available either in all cases or in none.

Mr. Pawsey: I would leave it up to the school. I am anxious that schools should have greater powers. I want individual schools to express their views on the issue. I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms Morris), who said:
I trust head teachers to behave in a way that protects their pupils and to ensure that members of staff behave in the most professional manner."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 12 December 1996; c. 426.]
She is right. The overwhelming majority of the nation's teachers are committed both to their profession and to the children under their charge.
7.30 pm
Recently, one of my constituents—a well-respected, retired teacher of English—said in my local newspaper:
When I started in 1958 I very occasionally caned the odd miscreant so that the class could study quietly and listen and learn. Children knew that they were expected to behave reasonably and that there were sanctions if they did not.
That teacher spoke with 35 years' experience of teaching English in a secondary school. The House will note the use of the word "occasionally". As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) said, the cane is a powerful deterrent. The fact that it exists is enough in most cases to ensure classroom discipline.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), in polls conducted by newspapers, 68 per cent. of those polled were in favour of corporal punishment. Interestingly, that support was consistent across the political spectrum. The principal question that the House has to answer is: what does the greater damage to a child, exclusion or being caned?

Lady Olga Maitland: I note that my hon. Friend has made provision for female pupils to be caned. Is he serious that girls should be caned in school? To be honest, I think that that is barbaric.

Mr. Pawsey: The decision is not one that my hon. Friend or I will make—it is a matter for the school. If it is thought appropriate in a specific case—

Mr. Steinberg: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.
In the United Kingdom, the teacher acts in loco parentis—in place of the parent. The teacher should, therefore, act as any reasonable parent would.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: May I venture the opinion that, if girls behave in as barbaric a way as some boys, they deserve to be treated identically?

Mr. Pawsey: I think that the House will agree that learning best takes place in a reasonably disciplined environment. The new clause will merely ensure that

teachers have an added sanction that will allow them to teach a class without too much disruption. Conservative Members have a free vote tonight and I understand that Opposition Members also have a free vote. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House can come together in agreement that we want the best for children. We want our children to be educated in a reasonably disciplined environment. That is all that the new clause does.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: I could have gone to the theatre tonight, but I am glad that I did not because the speech of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was hilarious and I am grateful for the entertainment that he provided. Anyone who took the issue seriously could no longer do so having heard the hon. Gentleman.
I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would set out what constitutes "reasonable" corporal punishment. The details of his new clause take up several pages of the amendment paper, but I am still no clearer about what he means by reasonable corporal punishment. The new clause fails to clarify a number of important points. He mentioned that the cane would be the implement to be used and implied that there is such a thing as "reasonable" use of the cane. I should be interested to hear a little more about what he means by reasonable use. He has not made clear in the new clause or in his speech which parts of the body are to be struck by the cane. We used to get struck on the head at my school—[Interruption.] As hon. Members will be aware, it worked very well. Is it to be the head, the hands, the backside or the legs? It is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's comments what he proposes.
I had also hoped that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth would explain what he means by "reasonable punishment" and what is the boundary between reasonable chastisement and assault. I have had to deal with that boundary because, before I came to the House, I worked in social services for many years, dealing with children who had received corporal punishment, some of which might be defined by more civilised Members of Parliament as unreasonable. For instance, would the hon. Gentleman accept that if a child's body is marked, it is unreasonable chastisement? I am happy to give way for him to answer because those areas concern me. I have had to give evidence in a court of law in cases in which children had received what I and the local authority regarded as unreasonable chastisement. They had weals on their buttocks and legs. Is that reasonable or unreasonable? I want to know because it is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Jamieson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the "Oxford English Dictionary" definition of corporal punishment is as follows:
Punishment inflicted on the body, originally including death, mutilation, branding, bodily confinement, irons, the pillory, etc."?
Is he also aware that in 1868 the House abandoned corporal punishment in the Army? Would he suggest that pupils could avoid it by joining the cadets?

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I heard one or two hon. Members saying that they would subscribe to the dictionary definition in its entirety.

Mr. Gunnell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made


matters even more confusing because he did not correct the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who was talking about "flogging"—I guess he was thinking that he might apply to be the flogger in Devon after the next election—or the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle), who talked about "thrashing"? Clearly, both those hon. Members used language that suggested that they were unreasonable, but the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not correct them or say that they were going beyond the bounds of what he regarded as reasonable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I made it clear at the start that interventions should be brief and to the point. That applies to all hon. Members who participate in the debate.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) makes the point that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth did not exactly discourage those of his colleagues who were more enthusiastic than he was about making bestial noises on this subject; nor has he intervened to define "reasonable" and "unreasonable". May I invite him instead to tell us what he regards as inhuman and degrading punishment?
Would the punishment of a boy or girl in a public arena be deemed degrading or inhuman? Punishment in front of other pupils used to happen regularly in my school. Would it be inhuman or degrading if, for good effect, pupils' clothing was lifted or removed when they were being caned? Does that excite the hon. Gentleman? It is important that he should clarify those points. This is a sick and sad new clause and it needs further explanation.

Mr. John Carlisle: Many Conservative Members have suffered the indignity of caning, which most Opposition Members probably have not suffered, for various reasons such as fathers' income. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that no clothing had to be removed? In fact, many of us put cardboard in our pants in an attempt to remit the punishment. It was degrading and painful, weals were put on one's buttocks and blood was drawn, but it was done on the basis that, because of the punishment, one did not commit that particular offence again. That is what the new clause is all about.

Mr. Hinchliffe: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that it did him the world of good, why is he sitting on the Conservative Benches?
I made it clear on Second Reading that my opposition to these attempts to restore corporal punishment was based on my experience and observations in a secondary modern school. Like the hon. Gentleman, I experienced various forms of corporal punishment. I was reminded of that last summer, when I attended the funeral of the head teacher of that secondary modern school, for whom I had a degree of respect. He did not cane or slipper me—he was a decent teacher and a good human being.
At that funeral, I met my former physical education teacher, whom I had not seen for 35 years, since leaving the school. Having shaken hands with him, I said that I owed him an apology. "What is it, David?" he asked. I replied that, 35 years ago, I had failed to turn up for the slipper, having been last out of the changing rooms after

one of his lessons. We used to receive corporal punishment if we were the last to finish getting changed after PE or rugby. When I told him that, he was embarrassed to be reminded of the regime used in my school 35 years ago.
Also at that funeral was my former deputy head teacher, who was my form teacher in my first year at secondary modern school. His behaviour as deputy head teacher made me believe passionately that corporal punishment was inhuman and degrading and that it should be done away with as soon as possible. Each week, in front of our form—a mixed class of boys and girls aged 11 and 12—boys from across the school were wheeled in and slippered.
I remember vividly one boy who would now be regarded as having special needs, or even as being delicate. Each week, that child screamed, wept and had to be helped out of the class room. Eventually, he was transferred to special education—damaged for life by that experience. That sort of brutality stuck with me and I was reminded of it when listening to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth. On Second Reading, I mentioned that, to me, the best possible reason for arguing against the restoration of corporal punishment was my memories of being in 1J at the age of 11, watching the same boys coming back, week after week. That proved to me, even as a simple soul at the age of 11, that corporal punishment did not work. If it was a deterrent, it obviously did not work in respect of the sort of boys who attended my school.
7.45 pm
I went back to my school in the autumn and asked the staff specifically about the abolition of corporal punishment and about the current regime used in place of corporal punishment. They gave me a detailed breakdown of what they call "discipline for learning", which is the system now used at the school. It is based on positive rewards for good behaviour, a range of rules that are understood by pupils, a gradual grading of rewards and behaviour checks and punishments and, at the end of the line and for serious misbehaviour, exclusion—which is rarely, if ever, used.
The staff showed me cards that are given out by teachers to pupils who have done good work, for example, asking the pupil to go for coffee with a teacher as a reward—an honour—for good behaviour. Teachers give pupils vouchers—positive rewards for good behaviour—which contrasts sharply with the negative regime that I had to put up with when I attended that school 35 years ago.
Many teachers are desperate about the current state of the education service, but I have not met one teacher who argues in favour of the return of corporal punishment. I have visited many schools, but I have not met one head teacher who argues for the return of corporal punishment.

Mr. Harry Greenway: What the hon. Gentleman has described is a serious abuse of corporal punishment, not moderate and reasonable corporal punishment. I do not believe that corporal punishment should ever be used in response to bad or late work, or in the absurd cases cited by the hon. Gentleman: it must be strictly confined to


serious offences, for which it can be a suitable punishment. Abuse of that sort should be condemned and I support the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.

Mr. Hinchliffe: In my opinion, corporal punishment is in itself an abuse of children.
I note with great interest that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has been unable to define what is reasonable or unreasonable corporal punishment. Therefore, if the new clause were passed, the whole issue would end up in the courts, and no one wants that. If the hon. Gentleman responds to the debate, he has a duty to state exactly what he means by reasonable and unreasonable.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I support the new clause because I start from the premise that we demand of our teachers—especially our head teachers—that they maintain an orderly and disciplined school; only in that framework can they provide the environment for disciplined education and learning. My concern is that, since the 1960s, we have progressively withdrawn all the sanctions, controls and deterrents with which teachers can maintain discipline.

Mr. Mike Hall: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many teachers have contacted him demanding the reintroduction of corporal punishment in our schools?

Mr. Arnold: Parents and teachers have contacted me—I shall refer later to teachers' views on the subject. The new clause proposes that a deterrent be placed at the disposal of schools to be exercised according to the judgment of head teachers. I think that all hon. Members will agree that teachers are professionals who can exercise good judgment. That is a key element of the new clause. Since the 1960s, we have increasingly sent defenceless teachers into the classroom, and it is no surprise that they have avoided maintaining discipline or tried to pass the buck to someone else—invariably unsuccessfully.

Mr. Jamieson: Will the hon. Gentleman assist the House by informing us which party was in government when corporal punishment was abolished in the 1980s?

Mr. Arnold: It was a Conservative Government with Labour local education authorities. I will return to that point later.
The Bill is beginning to reverse the trend of denying schools the means of maintaining discipline. Part IV of the Bill moves in that direction, and I believe that we should take a further step forward. The corporal punishment sanction should never have been withdrawn. I was a member of the local education authority of the Labour-controlled Northamptonshire county council in 1982, and I remember well when the sanction was withdrawn. Teachers' representatives appeared before the education committee and told us, "Stick to your guns. We are right behind you; we must have this sanction available, even if we do not use it. It is a deterrent."
We advanced our case, as did the teachers' representatives. However, when the crunch came, they voted with the Labour and Liberal groups to abolish corporal punishment in schools. When I asked them why

they had bothered to argue to retain corporal punishment as a deterrent to be used according to their professional judgment, their rather supine response was, "We have to live with the Labour group who control the education authority, so we must go along with them and not upset them." As a consequence, teachers in our classrooms are defenceless and have no adequate deterrents.
We are discussing the issue today in a beautiful wood-panelled hall—our meeting in Northamptonshire took place in a similar setting—and we are seeking to outbid each other by claiming, "We are not barbaric; we think that corporal punishment is uncivilised." However, it is the teachers who have to maintain disciplinary standards in our schools and it is the teachers whom we are sending defenceless into the classroom. I ask hon. Members to empower the teachers and to demonstrate our trust in their judgment. I urge hon. Members to support the new clause.

Mr. Kilfoyle: I shall be brief, as another new clause deals with substantially the same subject. I have nothing but contempt for the new clause—especially in view of the way in which it has been presented today. I hope that the increased number of Conservative Members in the Chamber—there are more present now than at any other time during the Report stage of the Bill—reflects support for the enlightened view of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) rather than for what I would describe as the Neanderthal view of the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle): I hope that he made his contribution to the debate with his tongue firmly in his cheek, and I am sure that the good burghers of Luton would share my view.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) is a cheerful cove at the worst of times and amiable at the best of times. I was extremely surprised to hear him use the phrase "choice and diversity" in the context of punishment. We must ask: whose choice and what diversity? My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred to many body parts and the diverse implements that can be used to inflict pain upon them. I remind the hon. Member for Luton, North that, like many of my colleagues, I suffered continued indignities and punishments of the kind that he believes should occur on a regular basis.
I believe that the clause, as it stands, is unworkable. New clause 6 makes allowances for children with special needs, but there is no provision to deal with the somewhat grey area of emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children. We do not know whether such children—the group most likely to be brutalised by corporal punishment—would be exempt. There is also the question of legal definition.
Despite the protestations of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, I believe that the new clause is contrary to the European convention on human rights and, if tested, would prove demonstrably so. I also believe that it is counter-productive. There are examples on both sides of the House of people whose recidivism was not ameliorated by liberal lashings of the strap, taw or cane. It is no wonder that in Committee the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth earned the soubriquet "flogger".

Mr. Pawsey: Only by you.

Mr. Kilfoyle: That view was certainly shared privately by hon. Members on both sides. I echo the


hon. Gentleman's remarks about allowing a free vote on the new clause and I hope that all hon. Members will take a lead from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and view the measure as barbaric. I can think of nothing more barbaric than state-sanctioned assault on children—and that is what is being advocated in the House today.

Mr. David Wilshire: Although I have no Nolan-type interests in the debate, I do have some relevant experience to declare. I was at the receiving end of corporal punishment when I was at school. It was probably richly deserved, and I have not the slightest idea now whether it did any good or any harm. However, as it happened more than once, I guess it did not act as a deterrent. I am the parent of two children, both of whom were smacked by my wife and by me when they were young. That had the desired effect at the time, and they do not appear to have suffered any physical or psychological damage.
I was a teacher for a short time when corporal punishment was permissible in schools—although I never used it and I cannot remember whether other teachers did. When I was a teacher, we could clip students around the ear—that did occur in my school—and not get sacked or sued. I have worked for a long time with many children in the voluntary sector, and I have had to separate fighting children physically. I have used a rap across the knuckles as a means of enforcing discipline and protecting children from damage, and I have found it to be a necessary sanction.
That experience has led me to several conclusions. First, although physical chastisement of children can clearly be harmful and damaging—as the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) pointed out correctly—it can also be positive and helpful if it occurs within a loving and caring relationship. My second conclusion is that the use of corporal punishment at home and at school raises separate issues, which I shall not explore this evening. Thirdly, I can see a difference between using corporal punishment as an immediate response and as a delayed ritual. For example, an instant smack or rap across the knuckles is different from a smack administered by father when he comes home or sending a child to the head's study. We would need to explore that difference if we were to go further down this route.

Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that tonight we should concentrate on ensuring that we introduce safeguards that would protect teachers who must smack or manhandle a child outside the classroom? Should we not also make it clear that children cannot be caned without inflicting damage in the form of weals or even bleeding? There is no way of hitting someone gently with a cane, because it is not designed for that purpose.

Mr. Wilshire: I understand my hon. Friend's point. New clause 4, which we dealt with yesterday, achieves those aims—which is why I voted for it enthusiastically.
Returning to the subject at hand, it follows that for me the new clause raises practical issues rather than matters of principle. For example, is corporal punishment wanted in schools and will it work in schools? It occurred to me, as one or two Opposition Members suggested it should, to ask my constituents what they think. I asked the parents

and the teachers in my constituency. I wrote to the head teachers of all 36 schools. I persuaded the Staines Informer to run a telephone poll to ask its readers. I included a question on corporal punishment in schools in my newsletter, which goes to 30,000 homes.
8 pm
My questionnaire is still on-going, but the early replies are overwhelmingly in favour of corporal punishment. The telephone poll run by the Staines Informer got a result of 65 per cent. in favour and 35 per cent. against.
More interestingly, of the 36 schools, 15 replied. Twelve said no, two said that they were not sure and one said yes. The one school that said yes held an informal ballot among its teachers, who voted 10 in favour and eight against. The other schools' responses seem to have been the view of one person. Equally interestingly, of the schools that said no, six volunteered the view that capital punishment was perfectly acceptable in the home, if not in the school. [Laughter.] When thinking about what I was going to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was convinced that I would refer to capital punishment before I finished, for which I apologise to you and to the House.
What can we make of the research that I carried out? It tells me that, at least in my constituency, many parents and some teachers support corporal punishment. They believe that some form of corporal punishment has a legitimate protective and educational role in bringing up children. I agree with them in principle, but I must tell the House that, if I were still a teacher, I doubt whether I would want to go beyond the immediate physical restraint and the immediate clip around the ear. I would not wish to cane a pupil. That is an individual choice.
When I was bringing up our children, when my wife was bringing up our children, and when I was teaching, I could choose whether corporal punishment was appropriate. For better or worse, I had that choice and I could make it for myself. Today, parents and teachers do not. I believe that today's parents and today's teachers should have exactly the same choice as my wife and I had.
If I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) correctly, the new clause would not force parents to accept corporal punishment, and would not force teachers to administer it. The new clause would give parents and teachers a choice. On that basis, even though I have reservations about the detail, and even though I doubt whether, if I were a teacher, I would wish to use the provisions, because it gives a choice I am happy to vote for it.

Mr. Steinberg: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members want to speak. I understand the frustration of many Members and others who want the cane to be reintroduced. Since I left the teaching profession 10 years ago, the situation in the classroom has got worse and worse. Many schools and teachers are having a difficult time.
Often I, too, think it is a damn good idea to give certain children a good hiding, but ultimately it does not work. The children who are chastised are the ones who keep coming back for it, time and again. Moreover, if a teacher gives a child a good hiding, the child's parent is likely to come into the school and give the teacher a good hiding. That must not be overlooked.
It is all right to conduct research and ask parents whether they want their children to be flogged. I suspect that, as the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) probably found out, the vast majority of parents want corporal punishment to be brought back, but they want it to be brought back for someone else's kid, not their own kids. As soon as a teacher touches their kids, there is hell on and they come to the school to see the head teacher.
Let me tell the House about my experience. I was a teacher for 20 years and a head teacher for 10 years. I have experienced both being flogged and flogging. I remember, at the age of 12, being off with the 'flu and coming back to school to find that a piece of homework had been set by the art teacher. As I was terrified of the art teacher, a man called Mr. Lynn, I attempted to do the art homework, which was on perspective. I handed it in and got flogged because it was not correct. I have always remembered that. Eventually, I got my own back on the gentleman. Several years later, when I applied for a deputy headship at a certain school and he applied for the same job, I got it and he did not.
As a head teacher, I used the cane, for about three years. The system in the school was that if, at the end of the day, a teacher felt that a particular child was causing so much disruption that the teacher felt unable to cope, the child was sent to my office. I had to decide whether to use the cane on the child. To back the teacher up, nine times out of 10 I had to cane the child in cold blood. The child would be brought into the office and told to put his hand out, and I would hit him with the cane.
As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said, when one uses the cane, one does not intend to tickle the child: one intends to hurt him, otherwise there is no point. On many occasions, one missed the child's hand and got him across the wrist, and immediately one could see the blood come. I did that on several occasions. Officially, I was allowed to do it. I entered the child's name in the punishment book and he would go away.
Amazingly, the children who were caned were always the same ones. I began to think that was ridiculous. There was a lad called Simpson—I remember him now—who used to come backwards and forwards. Every week he was in front of me and I was thumping hell out of him. He would go away, and two days later he would be back again. In the end, I remember him telling me to "eff off" and rushing out the door. I chased him, grabbed him by the neck, brought him back and whopped him again. Two days later, Simpson was back for another one.
The entire exercise was pointless and a waste of time. I was caning the same kids over and over again, with absolutely no effect. After three years, I said, "Enough is enough. This is ridiculous. It is getting me nowhere, it is getting the kids nowhere, and it is not improving discipline in the school." I adopted a completely different approach. If one rewards children, they respond. They respond to kindness and to being well looked after. They do not respond to a bloody good hiding.
The new clause is too stupid for words. I believe that the vast majority of teachers do not want caning brought back into schools. It is ridiculous to say that they do. Teachers have their own ways of dealing with disciplinary problems. It is about time we put more resources into our

schools and considered other methods, rather than bringing back the archaic approach of trying to thump kids into submission.

Mr. Marlow: When the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) said that corporal punishment could have a positive impact on discipline problems in schools, his instincts were quite right. He then made the wrong judgment. He cited the example of the child who kept coming back for more. Perhaps it did not work for that child, but what about the other children who were never sent to his study in the first place?
New clause 6, standing in my name, is similar in thrust to new clause 5, but different in detail. We used to have caning in our schools; now we do not and something has gone badly wrong in some of our schools. That is largely recent and to a large extent it coincides with the abolition of corporal punishment.

Mr. Rowe: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way, as many hon. Members wish to speak.
As we have seen on television recently, sadly, some of our schools have been reduced to a savage anarchy. There is no discipline and, without discipline, there can be no education. For so many of our children, the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of learning the foundation for a successful, prosperous and independent life is negligently and needlessly blotted out. We see the results on a daily basis in crime on our streets.
There is no single cure for indiscipline, but control cannot be regained until sufficient respect for authority is restored. In some schools, that respect could in part be restored by the reintroduction of caning. Louts and bullies are almost inevitably cowards. The threat of pain is an effective corrective. Our proposals are not barbaric. Sadly, the conditions in some of our schools are barbaric.
New clause 6 proposes that, if the board of governors and the head teacher of a school want to reintroduce corporal punishment, they should be entitled to do so. It would be up to them to decide. I understand that many schools would not opt for it, but some would find it effective and others might follow suit. It would be neither mandatory nor a requirement, but optional, and for some it would work and some of our problems could begin to be solved.
Why are we here today? Why are we in this position? The system was operating and then the European Court of Human Rights intervened. It is gross that an international court across the channel should tell us how we should behave and what is civilised in our country. That is a matter for the House to decide. We are a democratically elected Parliament and we should take the decisions.
I understand that, believe it or not, the new clause would be in accordance with the European Court of Human Rights. If it were passed, it would become the law of the land and schools would immediately be able to reintroduce corporal punishment should they so wish. Some people might then want to take a case to the European Court of Human Rights, but it would probably be thrown out. If it were not, if we had corporal punishment in our schools and it was found to be


effective, if some foreign court at that stage decided to throw out the laws of our land and this Parliament, we would take a significant view to that court.

Mr. Jack Thompson: Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

Mr. Marlow: No. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but there is very little time and others are waiting to speak.
Finally, there has been a load of steamy nonsense in the press suggesting that, if there is a vote, the Government will be embarrassed. The Government have wisely and decently decided that there is to be a free vote. That is quite proper and appropriate. I understand that there is also a free vote for the Opposition. Let us see what that means. We have heard about free votes for the Opposition before.
The Government are probably unable to accept the new clauses. Given their position in respect of the European Court of Human Rights and an election fairly shortly, I understand their difficulty. I do not blame them for that, but tonight the British people will find out who understands the problems in our schools and who can do something about it. It is the Conservative party, and not the Opposition.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) was absolutely right to express concern about the number of exclusions in our schools and the damage that does to the education of those young people. He then told the House that the most fundamental question we had to address tonight was: which was more damaging to children—exclusion from school or caning? He was absolutely wrong. The fundamental question was posed to him by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe): was there any evidence whatsoever to show that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would reduce the number of exclusions from schools?
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has repeatedly failed to provide any evidence to suggest that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would reduce the number of exclusions or the indiscipline in our schools, about which we are all concerned.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, time is very short.
The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth can produce no such evidence. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary and suggests that the reintroduction of corporal punishment would not reduce indiscipline in schools. Not one country in eastern or western Europe uses corporal punishment or considers it to be of value.
8.15 pm
In 1989, the Elton committee examined the issue. I remind the House of its conclusion:
there is little evidence that Corporal Punishment was in general an effective deterrent either to the pupils punished or to other pupils.

The very people whom the hon. Gentleman wants to use corporal punishment are opposed to its reintroduction. None of the teacher unions or professional associations believes that a return to corporal punishment would be beneficial to reducing indiscipline in our schools.
It is also instructive to consider the views of the pupils. One hon. Gentleman, whom I shall not name because I did not have an opportunity to inform him that I would refer to him, wrote in his local newspaper that, when he was at school, he was caned every single week. It is interesting to read the ensuing correspondence from year 9 pupils in a school in his constituency. I shall quote only two examples. The first wrote:
You said you'd been caned frequently at school; but doesn't this mean you behaved badly again and again to get such treatment—you didn't learn your lesson.
The second wrote:
It didn't make a difference to the way you behaved, did it? What makes you think it'll work for us?
There is no evidence that a return to corporal punishment would reduce indiscipline in our schools.
Surely when people in the country and the House should be trying to reduce violence in society, is it not strange even to contemplate reintroducing a violent form of punishment? I hope that, even on a free vote, the majority of hon. Members will vote against the new clause.

Mr. John Carlisle: The speech by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was the most extraordinary intervention that the House has heard for some time. I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would recommend some form of counselling so that those poor youngsters could talk it out of their system. He and the House know that that is complete nonsense.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for whom I have some affection, made an extraordinary accusation against the Conservative party when he said that too many Conservative Members were trying to speak. It is extraordinary in our great democracy that those of us who wish to express our opinion on a subject on which we feel strongly should be criticised by the hon. Gentleman for being here to do so in numbers.
I fully support my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), albeit on the basis that he presented his case far too reasonably. We are discussing a serious subject that must be approached with the vigour and enthusiasm of those of us who have suffered and even administered the cane to offending youths. My hon. Friend's arguments were far too reasonable, given that those who have offended—and some of my hon. Friends speak from experience—agree that the offence is such that punishment requires physical pain and that the counselling that the hon. Member for Bath would envisage would have no effect.
Some of us are somewhat proud of the old school tie. I am wearing mine tonight in deference to the punishment that was inflicted on me and that I inflicted on others on the basis that, in many cases, it is ultimately the only answer to a terrible problem. We should inflict on those who easily inflict physical punishment on others the physical punishment that they understand. It is the short, sharp shock type of treatment that is needed and the House should allow it to be administered. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is right.
This issue goes back to the days of the Criminal Justice Bill of 1980. I see in the corner my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who was in the House at the time. This issue matters, and corporal punishment is the language that young thugs, wherever they come from, begin to understand.
It is the deterrent value of corporal punishment that means something, rather than the punishment itself. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth is right to propose that the choice should be available. I believe that it should be mandatory on teachers and those in local education authorities to inflict corporal punishment.
I remind the House that, many years ago, when the European Community, as it was in those days, tried to impose its will on the House, the National Union of Teachers supported the continuation of corporal punishment because it felt that it should be available to its members.

Mr. Denis MacShane: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlisle: I give way to the hon. Gentleman in the red cardigan.

Mr. MacShane: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for praising the NUT in a previous speech. No doubt that praise will be suitably noted.
I had a conversation with my daughter and a group of her nine-year-old friends the other day. One of them asked, "Do you know Mr. Major?" I said, "Yes, I have seen him now and then." They asked, "Is it true that he is going to bring back caning for us if we go to secondary school?" Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if those nine-year-olds had the vote, they would not vote for the Conservative Members who are coming in from the wilder shores of the Internet with their sadism and perversion tonight?

Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making one of his rare visits from Switzerland. He has given his wisdom to the House, of which it will have taken note. The Prime Minister must make his own decision. I am pleased that the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has some sympathy with the views that have been expressed by Conservative Members.
If we do not pass new clause 5, we shall regret it for a very long time. I fear that, if it falls tonight, it will be gone for ever.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Carlisle: My hon. Friend is a very dear and close friend; he will forgive me if I do not give way.
The measure proposed in the new clause, which was admirably put by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, should be available to teachers and those in local education authorities. I hope that the House supports it tonight.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I have always supported corporal punishment, but I much prefer new

clause 6 to new clause 5. In my view, the people whose sons—it is unlikely to be girls, but it may be—require corporal punishment would assent to it. If new clause 6 became law, the school, governors and head teacher, in conclave, could make that part of a mission statement to be placed before prospective parents.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I will not give way.
Those people would inform parents that corporal punishment was among the disciplinary measures that might be taken. Opposition Members—I believe a Yorkshire Member—object. It seems to me that they object on health grounds, mental health grounds and so on. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) spoke only about new clause 5. Had he thoroughly read new clause 6, he would have found that those aspects were covered. The school must consider not only the pupil's disciplinary record but any special educational needs that he may have, his state of health and his age. I believe that that covers all the points made by the hon. Member for Wakefield, the ex-social worker.
No doubt all hon. Members regularly visit schools in their constituencies, so they cannot have failed to notice a steady but rapid deterioration in discipline in many schools. That applies across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, that deterioration dates from about 10 years ago, when caning was abolished. My recollection is that the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers, not the NUT, wished to retain it, and I believe that it still does.
One of the kindest headmasters whom I have ever had the good fortune to know, who has been in post for 25 years at a school in my constituency—he was more of a teddy bear than a headmaster, but the discipline in the school was exceptionally good—said to me, "I have been here for 25 years and I have used the cane only once, but everyone knows that it is behind the door. I believe that it is essential."
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). I would never give a child a clip round the ear. Hitting a child's head can damage their hearing or their brain. However, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable to hit a child on the hand, and I believe that the power to do so should be restored.

Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I was amazed at the hilarity with which his speech was received by Opposition Members. It is obvious that they are completely out of touch with the ordinary people in this country, especially parents. I support this move, for two reasons.
First, I believe in variety and choice in education and the Opposition believe in uniformity. No one is saying that every school should have the cane, but if a few schools had it, parents who wanted a highly disciplined school with appropriate punishments could send their children there.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Townend: I will not give way because I want to get on.
Many parents are witnessing their child's education being ruined by classroom anarchy caused by a few people. Many parents are worried sick because their children go to school frightened of being bullied, and are bullied. We have a duty to consider not only the naughty children who are being caned but the rest of the children in the class.
There is nothing wrong with the new clause. It is based on choice: the choice of the parent and the choice of the school. The Opposition are frightened that if only one or two schools introduce corporal punishment, an avalanche of parents will want to send their children to them.
I would say to the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) that corporal punishment, as practised at their school, was obviously wrong and ineffective. Corporal punishment, to be effective, must be rarely given. At my school, if one went to the headmaster, one did not return the next week and the week after.
One of the very fine headmasters in my constituency—the headmaster of a comprehensive school, who has now retired—who was not a Conservative but a lifetime socialist, said to me, "Mr. Townend, you would be surprised, but I agree with your views on corporal punishment. I have caned only a few times in my career, never more than once a term, but I believe that by caning young thugs at the right time I have saved four or five of them from a life of crime."
The second reason why I support the new clause is the alternative. The alternative ultimate punishment is exclusion. That is damaging for the child, and excluded children are encouraged to commit vandalism and petty crime on the streets, and before too long petty crime becomes more serious crime.
In my constituency, crime is a real problem. A high proportion of my constituents are old and it is often they who suffer when 14, 15 and 16-year-olds are excluded from school and roam the streets.
I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth well. The new clause should be passed, because if there were a referendum on the subject today we would bring back not only caning in schools but corporal punishment.

Mr. Forth: It is about 10 years since corporal punishment was last debated in the House. I shall leave it to others to decide whether this debate was worth waiting for. My hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), as we expected, argued their cases with commitment. We were not disappointed. I hope that it will come as no surprise to the House when I say that the Government will resist the new clauses.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear, the Government will not support the new clauses. The remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) were a disgrace. For him to imply to his doctrinaire friends that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would support the new clauses was grossly dishonest, but the House will not be surprised that I am not surprised about that.
I recognise that new clause 6 is the attempt of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North to bring back corporal punishment. His new clause would effectively repeal the prohibition of the use of corporal punishment, which is set out in section 548 of the Education Act 1996. The effect of that would be broadly to revive the common law principle that applied before the Education (No. 2) Act 1986—that a teacher acting in loco parentis would be able, where merited, lawfully to administer corporal punishment, even where parents specifically objected to that form of punishment. That would be in violation of the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend is considering what line he will take on this issue, may I reassure him that I have taken advice? The new clause would not be in conflict with the European Court of Human Rights. The court is concerned with degrading and inhuman punishment. The clause is defined in such a way that if corporal punishment were reintroduced, it would not be carried out in a degrading and inhuman way. In other words it would be all right. That being so, my hon. Friend can vote for the new clause.

Mr. Forth: It seems that my hon. Friend and I have received conflicting advice, which is not unusual in legal matters. I must rest on the advice that I have received. The prohibition of corporal punishment in state schools in 1986 was prompted by the 1982 ruling of the European Court of Human Rights that the United Kingdom was in breach of article 2 of protocol 1 to the convention. The court found that UK law failed to respect the philosophical convictions of parents who were opposed to schools using corporal punishment for their children. I believe, therefore, that new clause 6 falls at the first hurdle, and would be in breach of the European convention. As the United Kingdom is a signatory to the convention, my hon. Friend's approach would not work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth tabled new clause 5. He has taken account of many of the points that were made in Committee. He has gone to considerable lengths to seek to take account of what I have said about the European convention and the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights. I have received advice that his new clause may—this is not certain—deal with the points made by the convention and the court.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I shall give way, but I must seek to make rapid progress.

Mr. Arnold: Was not the whole point of the convention to provide an avenue of judicial recourse for individuals in France and Italy, were their countries to go communist, so that they might have protection against what happened to individuals in eastern Europe? As that circumstance no longer exists in Europe, is it not high time that the convention in its current form were scrapped?

Mr. Forth: A debate on our membership of the Council of Europe and our adherence to the European convention on human rights awaits another day. It is my advice that as long as we are a signatory to that convention, we must adhere to it and to the rulings of its court.
I move on to two or three substantive points. The first of those points was made by the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) and by others. The analysis of punishment books before the abolition of corporal punishment revealed, as has often been said, that many pupils' names appeared again and again, even though they had been subjected to corporal punishment. That seems to suggest that the punishment was ineffective in deterring pupils from committing misdemeanours. Surely that must be a telling point.
Another argument that has been raised—

Dr. Lynne Jones: rose—

Mr. Forth: I shall not give way at this stage.
Another argument that has been advanced by several Members is surely key to the debate. There is little, if any, evidence, in spite of the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire)—evidence that I am aware of, or the Department is aware of—that there is a demand from teachers for the restoration of corporal punishment and its availability to them. To the extent that that is so, the mere restoration of corporal punishment would not mean that it would be used in schools. Therefore, restoration would not have the effect that my hon. Friends seek.
The final point—

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: No. I shall not give way at this stage. I apologise to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Forth: I am not giving way to my hon. Friend or other hon. Friends. I want to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman); it is possibly the most crucial of all the arguments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has had to rest on the concept of parental consent to get around the problems posed by the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Surely those parents who are likely to consent are the very ones whose children would not need corporal punishment. Equally, the parents who would withhold consent are almost certainly those whose children, it is alleged, would most benefit from corporal punishment.
Moreover, in resting the case on parental consent, we would create a situation in which schools would contain two categories of pupil. There would be those who would be subject to corporal punishment and those who would be immune from it because their parents had not given consent. That would create an intolerable position in our schools. For these practical reasons, and perhaps with some regret, I cannot recommend acceptance of the new clauses.

Mr. Pawsey: This has been a particularly interesting debate.
I shall deal first with the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). The Education Act 1996 does not define corporal punishment. I have, therefore, followed the precedent that has already been established. The hon. Gentleman made a great point about reasonable punishment. The essence of new clause 5 is reasonable punishment. A teacher could be sued in the civil courts for trespass to the person unless the corporal punishment was carried out in accordance with the new clause. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's argument.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who sits next to the hon. Member for Wakefield, told us that he undertook caning. Does the hon. Member for Wakefield really believe that his hon. Friend is a violent character of the sort described? The hon. Gentleman knows his hon. Friend better than I do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), in a thoughtful speech, said that an additional sanction was being made available to teachers. He was right to advance that argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that corporal punishment could be of benefit in a loving and caring environment. He was right to make that point. Indeed, that is what the new clause emphasises. It is a reasonable amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said that without discipline there is no learning. He is right. Learning best takes place in a reasonably disciplined environment. My hon. Friend was critical of the European Court, and I was not surprised about that.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is now in his place, mentioned exclusions and evidence. The best evidence that I can give him is that 68 per cent. of those who have been polled are in favour of the reintroduction of corporal punishment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) supported the new clause. He described me as being too reasonable. I was somewhat surprised to hear him say that, given the way in which I was attacked by Opposition Members. Perhaps I have got things about right and have achieved a mid-way position between Opposition extremists and the extremists who sit behind me.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend) made a typically robust speech. He argued that the new clause would enhance choice in schools and in education generally. He made a good point about the responsibility of schools to the children who wish to learn.
My hon. Friend the Minister made one of the more disappointing speeches that I have heard from the Government Dispatch Box. That means that he did not give me the unconditional support that I wished to hear from him. He said that he would resist the new clause, and that was a surprise. He thought that I had sought to deal with some of the objections that might come from the European Court. I appreciate that there is conflicting advice, but I have been advised that I have answered the court's objections.
The new clause would allow schools to reintroduce corporal punishment. It would be at the discretion of the school, its governing body, its head teacher and its parents. No one is forcing corporal punishment down anyone's throat: it is a matter for the individual, and parents would have to give their consent. That 68 per cent. poll clearly includes a substantial number of teachers—we cannot exclude them.
The debate has been about the need to provide a reasonably disciplined environment for learning. I urge my hon. Friends and Opposition Members to join me in the Lobby tonight.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 101, Noes 376.

Division No. 57]
[8.40 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Leigh, Edward


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
MacGregor, John


Atkins, Robert
Mans, Keith


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Marland, Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Marlow, Tony


Beggs, Roy
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Boyson, Sir Rhodes
Monro, Sir Hector


Brazier, Julian
Neubert, Sir Michael


Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Pawsey, James


Butcher, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Butterfill, John
Porter, David


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Rathbone, Tim


Carttiss, Michael
Redwood, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochf'd)
Renton, Tim


Colvin, Michael
Richards, Rod


Cope, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion


Cran, James
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Day Stephen
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Dicks, Terry
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)


Dover, Den
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Sims, Sir Roger


Dunn, Bob
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsf'ld)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)



Speed, Sir Keith


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Stewart, Allan


Fry, Sir Peter
Sumberg, David


Gallie, Phil
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gardiner, Sir George
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Gill, Christopher
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Townsend, Sir Cyril (Bexf'yh'th)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Trotter, Neville


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Hamilton, Sir Archibald
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Hannam, Sir John
Whittingdale, John


Harris, David
Wilkinson, John


Howell, David (Guildf'd)
Wilshire, David


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)


Jessel, Toby
Yeo, Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine



Knight Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Mr. Walter Sweeney and


Legg, Barry
Mr. Warren Hawksley.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Amess, David


Adams, Mrs Irene
Ancram, Michael


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Arbuthnot, James


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Ashby, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashdown, Paddy


Alison, Michael (Selby)
Ashton, Joseph





Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)


Austin-Walker, John
Cunningham, Dr John


Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dafis, Cynog


Barnes, Harry
Dalyell, Tarn


Barron, Kevin
Davidson, Ian


Bates, Michael
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)


Batiste, Spencer
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)


Battle, John
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bayley, Hugh
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Denham, John


Beith, A J
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Benn, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Bennett, Andrew F
Dewar, Donald


Benton, Joe
Dobson, Frank


Beresford, Sir Paul
Donohoe, Brian H


Berry, Roger
Dorrell, Stephen


Betts, Clive
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, John
Dowd, Jim


Blunkett, David
Duncan, Alan


Boateng, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eagle, Ms Angela


Booth, Hartley
Eastham, Ken


Boswell, Tim
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Elletson, Harold


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Keith
Etherington, Bill


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bright, Sir Graham
Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)


Brooke, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Evennett David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Faber, David


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Burden, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Fishburn, Dudley


Burt, Alistair
Fisher, Mark


Butler, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Caborn, Richard
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Callaghan, Jim
Forth, Eric


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Derek


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foulkes, George


Campbell-Savours, D N
Fowler, Sir Norman


Canavan, Dennis
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Carrington, Matthew
Freeman, Roger


Channon, Paul
French, Douglas


Chapman, Sir Sydney
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Chidgey, David
Galbraith, Sam


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Garrett, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
George, Bruce


Clelland, David
Gerrard, Neil


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Gilbert, Dr John


Coe, Sebastian
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Coffey, Ms Ann
Godman, Dr Norman A


Cohen, Harry
Golding, Mrs Llin


Congdon, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Connarty, Michael
Gorst, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Grocott, Bruce


Corbyn, Jeremy
Gummer, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Gunnell, John


Couchman, James
Hague, William


Cousins, Jim
Hall, Mike


Cox, Tom
Hampson, Dr Keith


Cummings, John
Hanson, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hardy, Peter






Hargreaves, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
McNamara, Kevin


Hawkins, Nick
MacShane, Denis


Hayes, Jerry
Madden, Max


Heald, Oliver
Maddock, Mrs Diana


Heath, Sir Edward
Madel, Sir David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hendry, Charles
Maitland, Lady Olga


Heppell, John
Malone, Gerald


Heseltine, Michael
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hicks, Sir Robert
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Higgins, Sir Terence
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Mates, Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)
Maxton, John


Home Robertson, John
Meacher, Michael


Hood, Jimmy
Meale, Alan


Horam, John
Mellor, David


Hordern, Sir Peter
Merchant, Piers


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michael, Alun


Hoyle, Doug
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Morgan, Rhodri


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Morley, Elliot


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hutton, John
Moss, Malcolm


Illsley, Eric
Mowlam, Ms Marjorie


Jack, Michael
Mudie, George


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Mullin, Chris


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Murphy, Paul


Jamieson, David
Nelson, Anthony


Janner, Greville
Newton, Tony


Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)
Nicholls, Patrick


Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)
Norris, Steve


Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)
Oakes, Gordon


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Jones, Robert B (W Herts)
Orme, Stanley


Kaufman, Gerald
Ottaway, Richard


Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)
Page, Richard


Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)
Paice, James


Key, Robert
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Khabra, Piara S
Pattie, Sir Geoffrey


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pendry, Tom


Kirkhope, Timothy
Pickles, Eric


Kirkwood, Archy
Pickthall, Colin


Knapman, Roger
Pike, Peter L


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Pope, Greg


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Portillo, Michael


Knox, Sir David
Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)


Kynoch, George
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)
Purchase, Ken


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Rendel, David


Lidington, David
Robathan, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Litherland, Robert
Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)


Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretfd)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Loyden, Eddie
Rogers, Allan


Luff, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Rowe, Andrew


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Rumbold, Dame Angela


McCartney, Ian (Makerf'ld)
Sackville, Tom


Macdonald, Calum
Sainsbury, Sir Timothy


McFall, John
Scott, Sir Nicholas


MacKay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McKelvey, William
Sheerman, Barry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Shephard, Mrs Gillian


Maclean, David
Skinner, Dennis





Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Tipping, Paddy


Snape, Peter
Touhig, Don


Soames, Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


Soley, Clive
Trend, Michael


Spearing, Nigel
Trickett, Jon


Spellar, John
Turner, Dennis


Spencer, Sir Derek
Waldegrave, William


Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Walley, Ms Joan


Spink, Dr Robert
Ward, John


Spring, Richard
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sproat, Iain
Wareing, Robert N


Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)
Waterson, Nigel


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Watts, John


Stanley, Sir John
Wells, Bowen


Steel, Sir David
Wheeler, Sir John


Steen, Anthony
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Steinberg, Gerry
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Stephen, Michael
Willetts, David


Stern, Michael
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Streeter, Gary
Winnick, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sykes, John
Worthington, Tony


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wray, Jimmy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wright, Dr Tony


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Sir George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Timms, Stephen
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising a point of order at this time, but I wonder whether there is any way of urgently contacting a Home Office Minister in connection with the hunger strike at Rochester prison—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. That has absolutely nothing to do with the Chair, and there is a telephone outside.

New clause 7

PROMOTION OF MARRIAGE AND PARENTHOOD IN MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

'—(1) Section 351 of the Education Act 1996 (General duties in respect of the curriculum) shall be amended as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted
including marriage and parenthood.".'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Under section 351 of the Education Act 1996, the national curriculum must prepare people for the
opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
My new clause simply suggests that marriage and parenthood constitute one of the key aspects of adult life, and should be included in the national curriculum.
Politicians of all parties tend to make vague generalisations about being "committed to the family". When politicians say that they are committed to the family, do they mean that they are committed merely to maintaining the status quo, or do they mean that they want


to support a stable, lifelong relationship between a man and a woman, and to support the notion that being a parent means being a parent for life?
There is a danger that the definition of the ideal family has been stretched to include any configuration of adults and children. Given that we have a detailed national curriculum, I consider it appropriate for Parliament to lay down clear objectives about the aims that we want our state schools to achieve.
Parents are rightly concerned about examination results and academic achievement, and we should do all we can to ensure that standards are raised; but education is education, not only for the purposes of employment but for the purposes of life itself. Schools, whether they like it or not, have a key role in communicating values to young people. It surely cannot have escaped many people's attention that today's society faces serious problems as a result of the breakdown of the family.
Of course young people can be profoundly affected by a parent's leaving the family home, but education must deal with the fact that, one day, most young people will grow up and become parents themselves. My concern is to see our schools promote responsible attitudes towards marriage and parenthood. I strongly believe that the time has now come to extend the objectives of the national curriculum to include preparing pupils for the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I do not think that anyone would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's view that marriage—and parenthood in particular—represent an estate on which many people will embark, and that for that reason they should be included in the national curriculum. Surely, however, the hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he said that they were "one of" the key aspects of the national curriculum.
Why should those matters be singled out in the new clause—given that they are already covered in the Bill as it stands—in preference to any number of items that could be added, relating to the responsibilities and opportunities of adults? Does not the new clause invite people to add an infinite number of items, according to whim and to their particular interests?

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that point. I shall refer to it in detail, but marriage and parenthood are such an integral part of life that they should be part of the national curriculum, and should be taught.
Some people might say, "Surely schools already cover marriage and parenthood in their courses on personal and social education." I accept that, but my main concern is that such courses can often put marriage on an equal basis with temporary relationships, and fail to promote a responsible attitude to marriage and parenthood.
The book that I have in my hand is a well-established teacher's book for primary schools. I think that most Members reading the book would be appalled by its suggestions. The introduction is a guide to flouting the law so that sex education can avoid being within the framework of "moral considerations" and "family life" as required by Parliament. The introduction gleefully points out that Parliament—that is us—has failed to define what it means by the family.
9 pm
Later, the book says:
Parenting can be carried out just as successfully by people who are not necessarily the child's natural parents.
That may be true in some circumstances, but it is a somewhat offhand dismissal of natural family ties. Of course I accept that, in some cases, adults who are not the natural parents can do a great job of raising children, but common sense teaches us that the ideal is for children to be cared for and nurtured by both natural parents. To pretend that that is not true is to distort the truth and to deceive children.
I would never claim to be able to look after other hon. Members' children as well as the hon. Members themselves. Obviously, we must assume that it is overwhelmingly the case that natural parents are the best carers and models for children. The book adopts a completely irresponsible attitude to human relationships. For the book, one-night stands are just as valid as marriage. In my view, they are not.
There is an accompanying teaching book for secondary schools. It is clear on the moral values that it promotes. Let me read just one sentence from a story to be read to pupils—school children—to help them to feel more confident about the subject:
Deb and Philip had been together for two years, and … they both had other close friends with whom they slept occasionally".
What sort of example is that for young people? This is a well-known teacher's manual.
Of course these are only two teacher's manuals, albeit fairly typical ones. We do not know what is taught in every classroom. Parliament cannot control every classroom, but it can act to give general guidance to schools. My new clause addresses the national curriculum as a whole. Here, we can make a difference and state what we want.
My worse fears have been fully justified by the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, which recently considered the moral values that schools should promote. Their moral framework was drawn up by SCAA officials after it appointed 150 people to a National Forum for Values in Education and the Community.
In the first draft last September, the family was not even mentioned. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment intervened. She called for the curriculum to support traditional family values. That intervention led to the next draft including the family.
By January, the "moral framework" included a weak reference to marriage. The framework says that schools should
support families in raising children and caring for dependants, support the institution of marriage
and
recognise that the love and commitment required for a secure and happy childhood can be found in families of different kinds".
Fine. I accept that the guidance says that the institution of marriage should be supported, but it qualifies that by implying that other sorts of families are equally secure and happy. Such a caveat ignores all the evidence that, normally, children thrive best of all when they live with their two married parents. That is just common sense.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My hon. Friend will recall that it was suggested that putting


marriage into such teaching in schools was irrelevant for many children. I might suggest that talking about going to the moon could be just as irrelevant, and it could be included with marriage as an ideal to which they might aspire.

Mr. Leigh: Yes. I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. I will return to it. We should not frame national policy making on the basis just of the lowest common denominator, but seek to provide an example to young people.
Of course there are always individual exceptions to the rule that I have outlined, but that does not change the fact that, on average, children thrive best when they live with their married father and mother. The reason why the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church have objected to SCAA's wording is that marriage is supported in the document, not promoted. Marriage is not held up as the ideal, but is just one configuration of family among many others. The wording that SCAA has chosen is therefore pretty meaningless.
The public, however, are very clear about what they want. Opinion polls clearly show that people want schools to promote marriage, not just support it. A Gallup poll, which was reported in The Sunday Telegraph on 3 November, found that 75 per cent. of people believe that schools should teach children that marriage is a good thing. Another poll, conducted by Audience Selection, which was reported on the same day, found that 73 per cent. of people believe that the teaching of moral values in schools should focus on marriage and traditional family values.
Only after massive public controversy—reported on the front page of virtually every national newspaper—and intervention by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did SCAA include marriage in its framework document. That shows how out of step educational bureaucrats can be with the general public. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take firm action to ensure that her own quango issues sensible guidance in future.
The two most important commitments that a person can make in their lifetime are to marriage and to parenthood. Our law recognises that both should be lifelong. The English legal definition of marriage is the
voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.
That definition was given by Lord Justice Penzance as long ago as 1866.
Legislation, such as the Child Support Act 1991, recognises that parenthood is for life. Children need a mother and a father; they need to be cared for and nurtured in a stable environment of love between mother and father.

Mr. Julian Brazier: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way during his excellent speech. Does he agree that the whole point of education about parenthood is not to consider the rights and needs just of children in a classroom but to train them to be parents for the generation of children they will bring up in the future?

Mr. Leigh: I am very glad that I gave way to my hon. Friend, because his point leads directly to the one made by Norman Dennis, a Labour party member and

sociologist, who has argued that all studies show that, on average, children from married families do better than children from broken homes or lone-parent households.
I of course accept that many children from broken homes do better in terms of their health, education, employment, and so on, than some from married homes, but the point is that, on average, that is not so. Dennis argues that men are no longer tied to the responsibilities that they once had for the family. The social constraints on them to act responsibly have been substantially relaxed. My amendment calls for schools to prepare boys and girls to face up to and prepare for the responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.
Dr. Nick Tate, chief executive of SCAA, has argued that official documents cannot promote marriage, because, in some classes, 60 per cent. of pupils come from broken homes—precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). I do not doubt that such classes exist, but Tate's argument is a recipe for despair.
Are schools to affirm, against the evidence, that any kind of family is just as good as any other—no matter whether children have a male and a female carer or what the adults' commitment is to the children? Not all families are equally effective. It is nonsense to pretend that they are. There is a danger that Dr. Tate is promoting the very relativism that he claims to be against.
I strongly believe that we should reject the "stand idly by" approach to breakdown of families, for two good reasons. First, instead of promoting responsibility and family stability, that approach panders to the lowest common denominator of instability and irresponsibility to which I have referred. [Interruption.] There is no point in the Whip constantly trying to make me sit down. I have prepared my speech, and I shall make it.
There are, of course, children whose mothers or fathers have deserted the family home. Many realise that life is not what it should be. My amendment calls for schools to point them to a better way—not to become the absent fathers, the deadbeat dads of the future. Yes, there needs to be respect and sensitivity for all children, from whatever background. Children do not choose their parents, but they grow up to be the parents of the future.
The second reason why we should reject the fatalism of Dr. Tate is that the analysis is factually wrong. Yes, there are serious problems with the breakdown of the family, but they are not as serious as some would have us believe. Reports of the death of marriage and the nuclear family have been greatly exaggerated. If one accepts that children need a mother and a father, marriage is still the norm. Only 3 per cent. of children live with a cohabiting mother and father, whereas 71 per cent. live with their married mother and father. Those figures surprised me and I had to double-check them, but they are true.
Dr. Tate is wrong in arguing that we should not promote the family type in which 71 per cent. of children live. Of the remaining family types, 7 per cent. of children live in a step-family—of which 4 per cent. are married step-families and 3 per cent. cohabiting; 2 per cent. live in a lone father household; and 17 per cent. live in a lone mother household. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of children come from married households.
Most adults will marry, and most marriages will be for life. According to the general household survey, only 9 per cent. of men and women aged 15 to 59 are


cohabiting. The question is which form of human relationship schools should promote. Not to answer that question is to advocate a completely laissez-faire approach—a family free-for-all—and children deserve better than that. Unfortunately for them, the choices that adults make are not equally valid. At the very least, however, those choices will have a profound effect on children.
Yes, there are irresponsible fathers and mothers. In moving this new clause, I ask only that schools promote responsibility and the concept of a permanent relationship between a man and a woman. It is in the interests of our nation's future children that they do so; it is therefore in our national interest.

Lady Olga Maitland: I warmly welcome new clause 7, which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It is not enough to prepare children for adulthood without advocating positively and without any equivocation the importance of a stable and committed marriage and parenthood. There is plenty of evidence to suggest and support the belief that families and children flourish if they develop within the context of a traditional marriage, and that the life chances of a child reared outside that context are very much reduced.
Britain's rates of divorce and of children born outside marriage are the highest in Europe, and our marriage rates are far lower. The cost to society is so high that we cannot skimp on action or prevaricate on the issue. The nation spends more than £9 billion to support unstructured parenting—the "never-marrieds", the lone parents and the divorced—and the cost in children's development is cripplingly high. Parenting chaos plunges many children into the poorest percentile of society, and 90 per cent. of single parents aged 16 to 24 are on income support.
Children's life chances suffer because of constantly changing homes and an unorthodox type of parenting—whether it is a mother alone or with a succession of partners and stepfathers. Instability means that children suffer from poor performance in school and lack of concentration. They are anxious, clinging and attention-seeking, especially when they are young. As they grow older, they have a greater tendency to fall prey to solvent, drug and alcohol abuse, and to commit vandalism and other juvenile crime. They are rootless youngsters, whose life chances can be affected to the point that they lose the spirit to carry on with further education. Teenage girls become pregnant without stable relationships and marriage.
That vicious circle cannot be allowed to continue. We are being unfair to children if we do not give them a positive model to which they can aspire. They may have been denied a stable home themselves, but they should be encouraged to hold an ideal and aspiration, to stop the vicious circle.
One difficulty is that schools have fought shy of discussing traditional marriage, partly because some teachers have chaotic lives of their own and do not share such a commitment, and partly because schools believe that such discussion would embarrass children who do not come from stable homes. Children are being sold short if there is any equivocation on the virtues of marriage. The National Forum for Values in Education and the Community fails on

that count, because, although it states that it supports marriage, in the same breath it states that
the love and commitment required for a happy childhood can be found in families of different kinds.
That gives legitimacy to single parenthood and to the "never-marrieds", and it undermines the traditional family.
We should be bold in our support of marriage, and the theme of marriage should permeate all aspects of education. Children should be taught that walking out of a marriage, divorcing or never marrying are not easy alternatives, and that such actions can wreck lives and destroy the life chances of others.
We must follow the firm line of the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches, that, if we do not support marriage clearly and unequivocally, we undermine the institution. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reflect carefully on this important new clause.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friends who have spoken in support of the new clause are knocking on an open door. Few would take issue with the substance of what they say. I ask them to reconsider pressing the clause at this stage, for pragmatic and practical reasons.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) generously acknowledged that there are already elements in the curriculum that point us in the right direction, even if they do not go as far as he wishes. He referred to one such measure, and there are others—under the provisions for sex education, for example.
I ask my hon. Friends to bear in mind two points. There are always pressures on the curriculum and on schools to include many subjects that have wide support from different areas. Of course, the issue that my hon. Friends have raised has enormously wide support, as they have pointed out, and as we know from the many hon. Members who have given their support. Other subjects also have widespread support—citizenship is often mentioned in this context, as is giving young people an awareness of financial responsibilities.
Those issues may not be in the same category as those raised by my hon. Friends, but the point is that there is always pressure to include ever more in the curriculum. We are trying desperately to hold on to core skills and to use the curriculum to best effect to teach young people the basic skills—literacy, numeracy and so on. We have to be careful about allowing other subjects, even though they are important, to be brought into the curriculum.
I could also say—although it would be risky to do so—that to assume that putting something into the curriculum means that it is automatically carried forward into the consciousness of young people is interesting, but sometimes rather dangerous. I shall not press that point, because it would take me down a road that I do not want to go too far down.
I understand the views of my hon. Friends about the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the forum, but I ask them to be patient. Much good work has already been done. A real effort is being made to find as much common ground as possible and to bring as many people as possible behind the values that my hon. Friends have supported. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is well aware of their concerns.
I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friends have said, and my right hon. Friend will be made well aware of the points that they have made. She is happy to give the undertaking that my hon. Friends have asked for that we will give the closest consideration to what they have said. My right hon. Friend will particularly bear in mind what has been argued in the House this evening when she considers what emerges from the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the national forum.
I ask my hon. Friends to accept that undertaking in the spirit in which I offer it. I hope that they will not press the new clause for inclusion in the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for the generous way in which my hon. Friend has dealt with our concerns. In view of the fact that he said that we were knocking on an open door and that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has particularly seized on the arguments that we have made this evening, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 5 TO THE EDUCATION ACT 1996

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 52, line 9, at end insert—
'"admission authority" has the same meaning as in Chapter I of Part VI;'—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 14

GRANTS TO PROMOTERS OF GRANT-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 13, line 16, at end insert—

'(1A) The funding authority shall not, however, make any grant under this section to any such persons unless—

(a) the authority are satisfied that it is likely that the proposed school would, if established, be a viable school; or
(b) it appears to the authority, on the basis of material already submitted to them by those persons, that it is likely that they would be so satisfied once those persons had taken any particular further steps, and the grant is made in respect of expenditure to be incurred in connection with taking those steps.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A) a proposed school would be a viable school if there would be a sufficient demand for places at the school to ensure that a satisfactory standard of education was provided there.'—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 19

RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISCIPLINE: LEA-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 16, line 17, leave out 'prepare' and insert 'make'.

No. 7, in page 16, line 31, at end insert—
'(2A) Before making or revising the statement required by subsection (2)(a) the governing body shall consult (in such manner as appears to them to be appropriate)—

(a) the head teacher, and
(b) parents of registered pupils at the school.'

No. 8, in page 16, line 45, leave out 'prepared' and insert 'made'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 20

RESPONSIBILITY FOR DISCIPLINE: GRANT-MAINTAINED AND GRANT-MAINTAINED SPECIAL SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 17, line 31, leave out 'prepare' and insert 'make'.

No. 10, in page 17, line 45, at end insert—
'(2A) Before making or revising the statement required by subsection (2)(a) the governing body shall consult (in such manner as appears to them to be appropriate)—

(a) the head teacher, and
(b) parents of registered pupils at the school.'

No. 11, in page 18, line 14, leave out 'prepared' and insert 'made'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 21

DETENTION OUTSIDE SCHOOL HOURS LAWFUL DESPITE ABSENCE OF PARENTAL CONSENT

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 18, line 36, leave out from beginning to 'Where' in line 39 and insert
'After the section 550A inserted in the Education Act 1996 by section (Power of members of staff to restrain pupils) of this Act there shall be inserted—

"Detention

550B—(1)'.

No. 13, in page 19, line 11, after 'and' insert
'have—
(i)'.

No. 14, in page 19, line 12, after 'school,' insert
'and
(ii) taken steps to bring to the attention of the parent of every person who is for the time being a registered pupil there,'—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 23

EXCLUSION OR REINSTATEMENT APPEALS: LEA-MAINTAINED SCHOOLS

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 20, leave out lines 29 to 34 and insert—
'(3) For paragraph 8 there shall be substituted—

"8.—(1) On an appeal by a pupil or parent the appeal committee shall give the appellant an opportunity of appearing and making oral representations, and shall allow him to be represented or to be accompanied by a friend.
(2) On such an appeal the committee shall allow—

(a) the head teacher to make written representations and to appear and make oral representations,
(b) the local education authority and the governing body to make written representations,
(c) an officer of the authority nominated by the authority, and a governor nominated by the governing body, to appear and make oral representations, and
(d) the governing body to be represented.".'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 32

ADOPTION OF BASELINE ASSESSMENT SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 27, line 40, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) However, in the case of any particular maintained primary school, the baseline assessment scheme which is to be adopted for the school under this section by its governing body shall be such scheme to which subsection (2) applies as is chosen—

(a) by the head teacher after consulting the governing body; or
(b) if such a scheme is not so chosen by him within a reasonable time, by the governing body;

and, when choosing the scheme to be adopted for a school which is maintained by a local education authority, the head teacher or (as the case may be) the governing body shall ensure that the scheme selected by the authority under subsection (4) is considered (whether on its own or with any other schemes).'.—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Clause 33

ASSESSMENT OF PUPILS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 17, in page 28, line 21, after 'direct' insert—
'(a)'.'.

No. 18, in page 28, line 22, at end insert ', or
(b) that, for the purposes of the assessment under that subsection of a particular registered pupil at the school, the school's baseline assessment scheme is to have effect with such modifications as are specified in the direction.'.

No. 19, in page 28, line 27, leave out from first 'the' to second 'and' in line 29 and insert
'matters set out in subsection (5A);'.

No. 20, in page 28, line 30, at end insert—
'(5A) The matters referred to in subsection (5) are—

(a) the fact that the head teacher has given the direction in question and his reasons for doing so;
(b) in the case of a direction under subsection (4)(b), the effect of the modifications specified in the direction; and
(c) whether the direction is to have permanent effect (and, if not, the period for which it is to have effect).'.—[Mrs. Gillan.]

Clause 39

FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY IN RELATION TO EXTERNAL VOCATIONAL AND ACADEMIC QUALIFICATIONS

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 32, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
(3) The Secretaries of State may by regulation make such provision as they consider appropriate for the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority in England and the Qualifications, Curriculum and Assessment Authority for Wales to co-operate in the exercise of their functions as set out in subsection (2)(a)-(g) above and section 45(2)(a)-(g) below respectively.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Government amendment No. 21.
No. 61, in clause 41, page 33, line 36, after 'question', insert
'in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State'

Government amendment No. 22.

No. 64, in clause 42, page 34, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
(b) shall include among those members persons who have been nominated to him by persons representative of occupations, trades or professions having experience and an interest in education or training.'.

No. 63, in clause 45, page 35, line 24, leave out from second 'Wales' to end of line 34 and insert
the functions set out in subsection (2) with respect to external qualifications.
(2) The functions are—

(a) to keep under review all aspects of such qualifications;
(b) to advise the Secretary of State on such matters concerned with such qualifications as he may refer to them or as they may see fit;
(c) to advise the Secretary of State on, and if so requested by him assist him to carry out, programmes of research and development for purposes connected with such qualifications;
(d) to provide support and advice to persons providing courses leading to such qualifications with a view to establishing and maintaining high standards in the provision of such courses;
(e) to publish and disseminate, and assist in the publication and dissemination of information relating to such qualifications;
(f) to develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of such qualifications;
(g) to accredit, where they meet such criteria, any such qualifications submitted for accreditation.'.

Government amendments Nos. 23 and 24.

Mr. Griffiths: Unfortunately, we shall have to be brief as time is pressing. The amendment would remove the uncertainty and potential confusion in clauses 39 and 45 with regard to the Qualifications and National Curriculum Authority, the QNCA, and Awdurdod Cymwysterau, Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru, or ACCAC. We also want to ensure that the membership of ACCAC truly represents those with expertise and interest in education and training. Finally, the amendment deals with a technical matter relating to fees.
The Bill allows for considerable confusion. The two bodies—the QNCA for England and ACCAC for Wales—have many functions, some of which are clear and some of which are not. The QNCA's functions are clearly stated in clause 39(2)(a) to (g), but ACCAC's role is dependent on the Secretary of State for Wales and the QNCA. The Secretary of State can, by order, decide that ACCAC runs its affairs concurrently with the QNCA or, at some stage, on its own. In the meantime, however, under schedule 6, the QNCA may authorise ACCAC to act as its agent in Wales in relation to external academic and vocational qualifications.
Although the underlying education and training needs in Wales are similar to those in England, there are differences that need to be recognised and tackled specifically by the QNCA and ACCAC in their own spheres of responsibility. In relation to the national curriculum and assessment, that has already been recognised in sections 358 to 361 and schedules 29 and 30 to the Education Act 1996. The existing Awdurdod Cwricwlwm ac Asesu Cymru, or ACAC, and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority are designated as bodies of equal standing with responsibilities for the national curriculum and assessment in their respective


countries, but with a duty to co-operate with one another and, indeed, to be represented at each other's main board meetings and committees. That model should be the one used in creating the QNCA and ACCAC. The possibility of that happening is foreshadowed in the Bill, but it remains only a possibility.
I trust that the Government will respond positively to the amendment, which is intended to give a clear and consistent role to ACCAC by homing in on one of the options that the Government have provided in the Bill. I hope that the Government will have the courage to take up that option by accepting the amendment; otherwise it will appear to people in Wales that, when facing the serious problems involved in creating a skilled work force at all levels of activity in Wales, the Government have chosen to dither by offering three options for which no timing is proposed for action. That seemingly flexible but in fact uncertain programme is a recipe for failure. The Government have had the courage in the past to create separate bodies, as with ACAC and SCAA, and I hope that they will have the courage to accept our amendments, which offer a clear and purposeful lead for enhancing vocational and academic qualifications in Wales.
Finally, I wish to refer to a matter that was raised earlier when we discussed the principle of a general teaching council. It would be Labour's intention to have a body in England and in Wales, once there was an assembly.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I support the proposals in the Bill and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). It strikes me that the whole of our education system has been bedevilled by the 40-year-long dispute about the respective values of academic and vocational education. I hope that, by bringing the bodies together, we can introduce the ideas of parity and respect for the vocational routes to education as well as the academic, because that seems to me both fundamental and important, especially in Wales.
There could be a Welsh solution to the problems. In that respect, I support the amendments, which make it clear that we could bring the bodies in Wales together to promote the values and importance of vocational education alongside those of academic qualifications The original Education Act 1944 envisaged a tripartite development of education, with grammar, secondary and technical strands It was the absence of the technical education route that caused many of the later problems Fortunately, that absence was filled in Wales by the development of the HND and OND qualifications and the growth of apprenticeships, which provided an alternative educational route for a whole generation of young people and were promoted by the gas and electricity companies and the then National Coal Board, Hoover and other major companies in Wales. As a result of the collapse of those training schemes, we have lost much of the vocational education that was once available. We need to restore that education; we need to restore respect for it and the qualifications that come with it.
It is vital that we establish respect for national vocational qualifications They should be rigorous, reliable and respected and we should look for ways to achieve that. We can do that in Wales and we can do it best by bringing the two organisations together to promote a powerful vocational educational route, down which so many of our young people should go. That is the single

most important action we can take to promote and assist a generation of children who do not necessarily desire to take a purely academic route forward. They need vocational qualifications that will be seen to be valued and to command the respect and support of employers in the Principality. For those reasons, I support the amendments.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jonathan Evans): In essence, four issues have arisen in the debate. The first relates to the power to limit examination fees. One position has been adopted by the Opposition in amendment No. 61 and another by the Government in Government amendments Nos. 22 and 24. The issues were highlighted in the debate in Committee, when the Opposition tabled an amendment that was identical to amendment No. 61, which required that any limit could be put in place only
in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State".
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), said in Committee that she believed that it might be appropriate for there to be a role for the Secretary of State, although she was resistant to the idea of a whole new regulatory framework. Government amendments Nos. 22 to 24 give effect, therefore, to a role for the Secretary of State in limiting such fees and, in the circumstances, I hope that that proposition will be accepted by the House.
Amendment No. 62 stipulates co-operation between ACCAC and the QNCA, but we believe that that is unnecessary. Under the existing arrangements, such co-operation already exists. We are resistant to the idea that it would be appropriate to set up a whole new regulatory framework and an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy to achieve that. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who is shouting from a sedentary position, need only look to the existing co-operation between the organisations to understand how unnecessary the amendment is.
Amendment No. 63 deals with a substantive point, and I have endeavoured to give reassurances about it. It would make the functions of ACCAC for Wales identical to those of the QNCA. However, Sir Ron Dearing, in his review of qualifications for 16 to 19-year-olds, recommended that SCAA and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications should be merged, but he did not propose what the amendment suggests: that NVQs in Wales should be the responsibility of ACCAC. He did not recommend that, and neither did the Welsh Office as a result of its consultations.
I can give the assurance that we anticipate that a conferment of functions order setting out what ACCAC will do will be introduced in the House. That will be broadly along the lines of what is contained in clause 39(2)(a) to (g), although it will introduce the flexibility of being able to change those arrangements in the light of experience.
9.30 pm
The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to the appointment of representatives to ACCAC. There is a clear divergence of opinion between us. He proposes what in essence should be a representational role for those who come from representative bodies or trade unions. We are


of the view that the body should draw upon the experience of a wide range of people in both education and training, but we see no representational role, so we resist the amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I am a trifle disappointed by the Minister's response because, as I read the Bill, the third option is more or less what we proposed in detail in the amendments. We put the amendments down as a marker for what will happen when there is a Labour Government and the Welsh Assembly is created.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 40

OTHER FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 33, line 11, leave out 'Act' and insert 'Part'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 41

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISCHARGE BY AUTHORITY OF THEIR FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 22, in page 33, line 41, at end insert—
'(5) Before exercising on any occasion their power to impose conditions falling within subsection (4)(a) the Authority shall obtain the consent of the Secretary of State as to such matters relating to the exercise of that power as he may determine.'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 46

OTHER FUNCTIONS OF THE AUTHORITY

Amendment made: No. 23, in page 36, line 17, leave out 'Act' and insert 'Part'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 47

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISCHARGE BY AUTHORITY OF THEIR FUNCTIONS

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 37, line 2, at end insert—
'(5) Before exercising on any occasion their power to impose conditions falling within subsection (4)(a) the Authority shall obtain the consent of the Secretary of State as to such matters relating to the exercise of that power as he may determine.'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 55

PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO INSPECTOR BY LEA

Amendment made: No. 25, in page 41, line 30, at end insert—
'(2A) In the case of any inspection under section 53, subsection (1) above shall apply in relation to any school maintained by any local education authority to which the inspection relates as it applies in relation to the authority; and without prejudice to that subsection (as it so applies)—

(a) the governing body of any such school shall give the inspector, and any person assisting him, all assistance in connection with the exercise of his functions which they are reasonably able to give; and
(b) the governing body of any such school and the authority shall secure that all such assistance is also given by persons who work at the school.'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 58

PROVISION OF CAREERS EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 42, line 28, leave out 'and'.

No. 27, in page 42, line 30, at end insert
'; and
(e) pupil referral units.'.

No. 28, in page 42, line 34, leave out 'and'.

No. 29, in page 42, line 36, at end insert
', and
(c) in the case of a pupil referral unit, the local education authority maintaining the unit and the teacher in charge of it.'.

No. 30, in page 43, line 17, at end insert
'or, in the case of a pupil at a pupil referral unit, by the teacher in charge of the unit.'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 59

SCHOOLS AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS TO CO-OPERATE WITH CAREERS ADVISERS

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 44, line 2, at end insert—
'(5A) Where a careers adviser has responsibilities in relation to persons attending an educational institution to which this section applies, he shall on request be permitted to have, in the case of any group of relevant pupils or students specified by him, access—

(a) to that group of persons in the manner specified in subsection (4)(a) and (b); and
(b) to such of the institution's facilities as can conveniently be made available for his use,

for the purpose of enabling him to provide those persons with group sessions on any matters relating to careers or to advice or guidance about careers.'.

No. 32, in page 44, line 3, leave out 'or (4)' and insert ', (4) or (5A)'.

No. 33, in page 44, line 7, after '58(2)' insert '(a) to (d)'.

No. 34, in page 44, line 10, leave out 'and (4)' and insert ', (4) and (5A)'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Clause 60

PROVISION OF CAREERS INFORMATION AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 45, line 2, after '58(2)' insert '(a) to (d)'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Schedule 9

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 37, in page 75, line 22, after '(a)' insert '(i)'.

No. 38, in page 75, line 23, leave out '(a)' and insert '(i)'.

No. 39, in page 78, line 35, at end insert—
'(4) After that subsection insert—
(9) Where the arrangements for the admission of pupils to a school provide for all pupils admitted to the school to be selected by reference to ability or aptitude, those arrangements shall be taken for the purposes of this Chapter to be wholly based on selection by reference to ability or aptitude, whether or not they also provide for the use of additional criteria in


circumstances where the number of children in a relevant age group who are assessed to be of the requisite ability or aptitude is greater than the number of pupils which it is intended to admit to the school in that age group.".'.

No. 40, in page 79, line 7, at end insert—
'. For the cross-heading "CORPORAL PUNISHMENT" preceding section 548 of that Act substitute—

"PUNISHMENT AND RESTRAINT OF PUPILS

Corporal punishment.'.

No. 41, in page 79, line 43, at end insert—
'"wholly based on selection by section 411(9)".'.
reference to ability or aptitude
(in Chapter I of Part VI)

No. 42, in page 80, line 8, after 'pupil),' insert—

'(a) in paragraph 14, after "relevant person." insert "the head teacher.": and
(b)'.'.—[Mr. Forth.]

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill is about extending diversity, improving discipline and raising standards. On Conservative Benches, we know that all three are essential to an effective education system, and I pay tribute to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their valuable and thoughtful contribution to the debate today and yesterday.
We are told that Opposition Members have heard of the word diversity. I believe that it appeared in the title of their policy statement on schools. Clearly, they have not grasped its meaning, however, as in that same policy statement they declared their intention to diminish diversity by abolishing grant-maintained and voluntary-aided schools. Equally clearly, some of them can understand it, because they apply it to the choices that they make for their own children. Therefore, there is a split in Labour ranks—a split between words and actions Most people would call that hypocrisy and if Labour Members' manoeuvrings last night illustrated anything, it was the hypocrisy at the heart of Labour's education policy.
Last night, Labour Members voted against the expansion of popular schools—the schools parents want to choose—and in particular against the very grant-maintained schools chosen by, among others in their ranks, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman). If their objections were so principled, it is curious that we heard no protest from them when the London Oratory school expanded to set up a junior house, nor murmurings of discontent about the current application to expand St. Olave's grant-maintained grammar school in Bromley. To the outside world, their principles on that matter might well be put this way: "My children are okay, so let's pull up the ladder in case anyone else's want to climb up."
Of course, some Labour Members are less hypocritical than others. Let us turn to grammar schools. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) may promise parents a vote on the future of grammar schools, if indeed that is what his obfuscation means, but leading Labour councillors are saying that they would move to

abolish them immediately after a Labour election victory. So will grammar schools be allowed a future under Labour or not?
A recent MORI poll for the King Edward VI Foundation in Birmingham was reported in the papers as showing that six out of 10 Labour voters would oppose any move to close the five foundation grammar schools. That is not surprising, because they are excellent schools. No wonder local people want to keep them. No wonder, given the comments of Labour councillors, that they are afraid that Labour would destroy that excellence. Labour politicians do not even seem to understand the views of their own voters—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must relate her remarks to the Bill before the House.

Mrs. Shephard: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Under the idea of choice promoted by Opposition Members during the debate in the past two days, one can choose any school one wants so long as it is the local education authority comprehensive, as under their plans that is what all schools would be. Real choice, however, means giving parents access to good schools of different kinds. That can be achieved only by extending diversity, which means giving schools more freedom to change what they do. That is what part I of the Bill is about. It will not compel any school to change, but it will give schools more flexibility to respond to what parents want. That will help to raise standards by encouraging schools to develop distinctive strengths, whether in teaching particular specialisms or teaching particular types of pupil. Those are the freedoms that were opposed last night.
Many parents want to send their children to selective schools, but for most people that opportunity exists only in a few parts of the country. We want to give many more parents access to schools that select some or all their pupils by ability or aptitude, either generally or for particular specialisms. Therefore, the Bill gives admission authorities more scope to introduce or extend selection by ability or aptitude without central approval.
Grant-maintained schools have a leading role to play in extending choice and diversity. They are the schools that, with parents' support, have chosen to take full responsibility for their own affairs. They have shown that they can use that responsibility well and they are getting good results. Thus the Bill gives them extra freedoms to open new sixth forms and nursery classes without central approval.
The Government are determined that the Bill should also allow grant-maintained schools more power to expand without central approval. We voted last night on whether to reintroduce the clause that would allow popular and effective schools to offer more parents the education that they want for their children. Checking last night's voting figures has shown that that vote was tied. Following discussions today, we shall reintroduce the clause in another place.
The debate on diversity and choice can be summarised briefly. We believe in it; Opposition Members do not. In contrast, however, and more happily, other parts of the Bill have attracted a high degree of cross-party support. They include the measures to improve school discipline. Obviously, schools must be orderly places, and the Bill


will help to secure that. It requires governing bodies to state their policies for promoting good behaviour and LEAs to set out how they support schools in that task. It gives schools clear legal authority to detain badly behaved pupils without their parents' consent and to use the 45-day annual limit for pupil exclusions more flexibly. As a result of an amendment passed yesterday, the Bill will now support the position of teachers in maintaining good discipline, by confirming and clarifying their powers to use physical force where that is needed to prevent injury, damage or disruption.
Good discipline creates an environment in which effective teaching and learning can take place, but the Bill also includes specific measures to raise standards, and there has been general support for those. The Bill requires every primary school to assess pupils on entry. It also requires schools to set targets for improving their pupils' performance. Many schools already set such targets; the time has come for all to do so.
Targets will be based on performance in assessments and qualifications, so it is important to have a framework for those assessments and qualifications that guarantees high standards. Combining the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications will help to achieve that, and the Bill paves the way for the merger. It also includes measures to ensure that every 14 to 16-year-old has a properly planned programme of careers education, access to impartial advice and guidance.
Finally, the Bill enables the Office for Standards in Education to inspect the work of LEAs. LEAs still have important work to do in supporting schools and they must carry out that work effectively. Inspection of schools is helping to raise standards; inspection of LEAs will do the same. It is not fair to children to tolerate the truancy rates of Nottinghamshire, the negligence of Calderdale or the appalling GCSE results of Islington—all, of course, under the control of the Labour party. Yet when we ask Labour Members to condemn those low standards, the silence is deafening.
Parents want a school with good discipline and high standards that provides education suitable to the talents and needs of their child. The Bill will help them to get it. Let us ensure that children are not deprived of their opportunities by the Labour party, practising the politics of envy and privilege, as we saw last night, and reserving for its chosen few the opportunities that the Conservative party would make available for the many. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. David Blunkett: I should like to put on record my considerable thanks, appreciation and congratulations to my colleagues, not only those who have served on the Front Bench, but those who served on Standing Committee D. Over the past two days, they have contributed to a magnificent effort and ensured that, last night, we were able to expose Conservative Members' real commitment.
If there was hypocrisy, the hypocrites were the 45 Conservative Members who were so in favour of the former clause 3 that they could not turn up to vote for it. If there is hypocrisy, it is the hypocrisy of those who

proclaim in national newspapers that they are favour of a general teaching council—in fact, they get the journalists to parade it as a Conservative idea and display it as new thinking that will feature in the Conservative manifesto—and then vote it down in the House, as they did today. There is hypocrisy when those who claim that they are not in favour of selection for primary education then refuse to put that on the face of the Bill and vote it down. The real hypocrites are those who pretend that they will give to the many what they are prepared to deliver only to the very few.
Let us take the idea that Labour Members are not in favour of diversity because we do not want a free-for-all that would make the gridlock described by the Audit Commission in its report before Christmas look like a children's tea party. The truth of the matter is that, over the past century, we have devised a system of co-operation and checks and balances precisely to ensure that one person's choice is not another person's disaster. That is why we believe in ensuring that there is genuine diversity within one campus, and collaboration and co-operation within the family of schools so that people have a real opportunity to choose. I make it absolutely clear that the Secretary of State uses words such as "abolition" on her own behalf: we have no plans to abolish or threaten schools—we plan to open the best of our schools to all children who are able to take advantage of them. Access will not be blocked by the 11-plus test—which the Prime Minister has pledged that the Conservatives will not retain, but to which they appear wedded. According to the nature of selection, the 11-plus test excludes children from the school of their choice in their neighbourhood.
In the next three months—up to the general election and after it—we shall continue our programme of raising education standards and quality for all. We shall offer genuine diversity and ensure that quality education, a disciplined environment and a commitment to community genuinely lift standards for everyone.
Let us examine the Conservative party's promise that it will allow a handful of schools to increase their student intake by 50 per cent. There is no promise to provide any extra cash. That pledge will therefore result in some schools expanding at the expense of other neighbouring schools and of parental choice. The latter schools will inevitably wither on the vine: they will not improve—they will close.
Let us examine the Government's pledge that would set school against school—not state local education authority school against state grant-maintained school, but grant-maintained school against grant-maintained school—in places such as Hillingdon or Kent. Clusters of GM schools are competing with each other in those areas. There is no publication of statutory requirements and no consultation or information. The schools cannot object and the Secretary of State cannot intervene. It is a free-for-all—or 24,000 corks bobbing on a murky sea, as the Chairman of the Education and Employment Committee, the hon. Member for Crosby (Sir M. Thornton), aptly described it. It is an ideological free-for-all that has nothing to do with diversity and everything to do with rather silly dogma.
We learned today that there has been a staggering reduction in the number of surplus places—from 883,166 to 875,000. What kind of fraudulent Government would suggest that they should increase the number of surplus


places, further widening the gulf between what could be spent on education and what is being spent keeping unused premises open? What kind of Government would delude the public into believing that the £100 million identified by the Audit Commission would not assist every child in every school to receive the education that he or she deserves?
Tonight is not the time to reveal once again the paucity of Conservative party education policy: we have done that during the passage of the Bill and throughout the past five years. People will soon have a chance to judge whether education standards have improved. Improvement at GCSE level between 1992 and 1997 was only half the rate achieved between 1988 and 1992. The British people will judge whether, in setting school against school, we have ended up with cut-throat competition rather than collaboration between schools; and whether, by choosing to include in the Bill the expansion of the assisted places scheme, the Government have denied schools the opportunity of reducing class sizes at that crucial early stage, key stage 1, to ensure that the basics can be acquired by all children as a foundation, so that they can go on to get a foothold on the ladder of lifelong learning, which opportunity at that early stage can afford.
In simple terms, the choice is whether to subsidise the very few in private education, or to ensure investment in the many in state education, and to ensure that we can repair and maintain our schools with an imaginative programme that will tackle the current £3 billion backlog. The choice is whether we provide places in early years and family education rather than a voucher scheme and whether we set aside the expansion of selection, which no one wants, and ensure instead that children and their parents have direct access to the school in their neighbourhood and the school of their choice, whatever its status and whatever the background of the parents.
We should be able to expand and provide diversity through the coming together of academic and vocational qualifications, to offer new ways of bringing in the disaffected and alienated young people of our country. I say that in the light of Bishop David Sheppard's remarks today that we should be concerned—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order The hon. Gentleman is straying from the Bill.

Mr. Blunkett: I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We should heed the words that are so important to lifting standards, at which at least part of the Bill is aimed, to ensure that there is hope that young people will have a job, training and a future to look forward to.
That is why we have suggested that we reach a consensus on the parts of the Bill on which the majority of hon. Members entirely agree—the provisions aimed at lifting standards, improving discipline and encouraging common sense—and set aside the provisions that divide the education service, return us to the past and are designed to look backwards rather than to a new century.
Let us ensure that the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Committee have not wasted their time, and that the Bill can be passed by both Houses by consensus, instead of the continuing divisions in the run-up to a general election which represent the fag-end of a Government who have failed to deliver and failed in their ideas, and who are offering no new pledges of any worth to the British people.
The Government have no new ideas. Education authorities will not be abolished. The Secretary of State said that this evening, and spelled out the role of local education authorities at Harrogate on 17 January. There will not be a common funding formula, because it would immediately result in a cut of £600 million in the resources available to schools. That is the sum allocated over and above the Government's standard spending assessment. We know that there will not be the wholesale imposition of grant-maintained status because, to her credit, the Secretary of State has resisted it. We know that there cannot be 100 per cent. delegation, because that would wipe out key elements which ensure that support is available to children with special needs and which provide the services that all schools require, whatever their status.
That is why the issues of the moment are not status and structure, but the standards that we offer all our children. We stand for opportunity and choice for all, not for a few, and an obsession with giving a real life chance to every child, not just to a particular group of children in a particular group of schools. We represent no abolition, no attack and no dogma, but a commitment to improvement and quality. That is what we shall be happy to offer the electorate at the general election.

Mr. Don Foster: It is a great pity that a lengthy and unnecessary debate on corporal punishment meant that many important amendments were not discussed today.
We are debating a Bill of two halves—the first half good, the second half bad. The first half deals with baseline assessment and inspection of LEAs and contains measures to improve discipline in schools and to improve careers and education guidance. I and my party entirely support and welcome those measures.
The second half, however, is thoroughly bad and will cause considerable damage to the education service. It is based on the fundamental philosophy that has underpinned so much of Conservative education thinking in recent years—that the marketplace will improve the quality of education. I do not agree. I believe that the introduction of the marketplace has damaged education and that we should be seeking to develop co-operation and partnership within the education service.
The Bill makes a sixth attempt to refloat the failed flagship policy of grant-maintained status, which British people simply do not want. That policy is not levering up standards, but creating a two-tier divisive system of education.
The Bill also attempts to introduce further competition through selection, which denies the parental choice that the Government are so proud to promote. Let us never forget that when schools select pupils, parents no longer have the choice. As so many Conservative Members have made absolutely clear, selection provides escape routes for the few, but it provides very little support and help for the many.
We desperately need an education system that is based on partnership and co-operation and provides high-quality education for all young people. That means increased investment in our education service. We need to introduce high-quality early-years education for three and four-year-olds. Those measures should have been included in the Bill, but were missed out.
Above all, if we are to lever up standards, we must recognise the vital importance of teachers and others who work in education. The Bill fails to give them the encouragement that they need to understand how valuable they are to the education service.
It is a Bill of two halves: half is thoroughly bad, but because half is good and we want that half to progress, we shall not oppose its Third Reading tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PESTICIDES

That the draft Plant Protection Products (Basic Conditions) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.

That the draft Control of Pesticides (Amendment) Regulations 1997, which were laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Ainsworth.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Gipsy Site (Weston-super-Mare)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Sir Jerry Wiggin: First, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency for taking the trouble to reply to the debate this evening. I am conscious that the hinge on which I have to hang ministerial responsibility is not the direct planning issue that I am about to raise. I hope that my hon. Friend will be tolerant when I describe the events that have persuaded me to draw ministerial attention to the history of the Willowmead temporary gipsy caravan site.
In March 1992, some hard-core arrived on the site. By the time of the general election, the gipsies had arrived on the site; they are still there in 1997. In the 1970s and 1980s, planning permission was given for about 17 caravans on that small piece of land, originally two acres with a two-acre paddock next door. Then the land was acquired for the new primary distributor road linking Weston-super-Mare and the M5.
In 1991, the then Woodspring district council revoked the previous planning permission and declared that the land should be returned to agricultural status.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Carrington.]

Sir Jerry Wiggin: Avon county council, which has emerged from this matter with no credit, was a Labour-controlled council, supported and kept in power by a substantial number of Liberal Democrats. The council claimed that the Willowmead site had planning permission for holiday caravans. The truth is that most of the site had been used for the construction of the new highway. The amount that remained allowed space for only three static vans, and in any event the planning permission had been withdrawn.
That, in itself, was a scandalous misinterpretation of the planning laws. I am afraid that the theme of my debate must be that there has been so much precedent in planning law over such a long period—nearly 50 years—that it is now essential that someone, sometime, examine the general principles behind the planning laws. For some time, I have advocated that a royal commission on planning be set up.
If there is a Gilbert and Sullivan situation like that, where a local authority grants planning permission for gipsy caravans based on the fact that, once upon a time, holiday caravans were allowed to be on the site, it is pretty obvious that the local authority is contravening the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.
Avon county council got caught out. It had allowed gipsies on to a site that it had used for roadworks. It had leased the quarry from an astute landowner who well knew the terms of his lease and who took Avon county council to court. The council was forced to eject the travellers from Racecourse quarry, and it had to find somewhere else to put them. In a desperate move, it put them on that tiny bit of land.
The county council made a planning application for emergency temporary use of the site. There were objections from Woodspring district council, Locking parish council, 50 local residents and me, and a petition with more than 10,000 signatures. Nevertheless, Avon granted itself permission to use the site for three years, expiring at the end of 1995.
Part of Avon's plan was to use Willowmead until the permanent travellers' site at Hewish was available. That was a privately owned site. An application had been submitted by a private owner and, although I received a petition of about 700 signatures, I am happy to say that I believe that site has settled down and is causing no difficulty. It appears to be well run.
One would have thought that, during the three years, Avon county council, knowing that the site had only temporary planning permission, might make some provision to resite the travellers from the Willowmead site. To the best of my knowledge, Avon county council made no effort to relocate the travellers from Willowmead to Hewish and, despite the fact that there was only temporary planning permission, it made no effort to find an alternative.
Avon council's structure plan contains policy H12, which identifies the need for about 100 pitches on either permanent or transfer sites throughout the whole of the former county of Avon. Without Willowmead, there are already 26 permanent pitches. There is no provision for a travellers' site within the Locking castle area local action plan.
It may be asked, "Why is all this so awful?" I have it on record that there are endless complaints about the site. Principally, they are about dogs trespassing on the neighbouring caravan site—the legitimate one that is used by one of my constituents as a commercial enterprise—chickens digging up flowers, bonfires, all-night parties, verbal abuse, blocking the entrance of neighbours and trespass. That has led to a reduction in business, and, sadly, even a drop in the grade of Airport View caravan and camping park, which has been in place for many years and was a great asset to the town. Rubbish is deposited everywhere and fencing is torn up. There is even a record of a goal making a nuisance of itself. I do not suppose that information will come as any surprise to the House, because so often sites of the sort that I am describing produce such complaints.
The local government ombudsman was brought in in April 1995. He ruled against the local authority on several counts. Some modest compensation was paid to some of my constituents. Further applications have been made to him, because much of the nuisance has persisted.
In November 1995, bearing it in mind that the planning permission was about to expire, Avon county—it knew that it was going into oblivion in April 1996—had the gall to apply for a new extension running until 30 September 1996. Again. I complained to my hon. Friend the Minister, saying. "This is really not good enough. You must intervene and call a public inquiry."
My hon. Friend replied on 28 October. He wrote:
I have noted your concerns about the latest application, and can understand your constituents' disappointment at the latest turn of events. However, as you are aware, the Government's policy is that planning applications are best left, as far as possible, in the hands of locally-accountable planning authorities. The Secretary of State is therefore very selective in deciding which applications to call-in,

and would generally intervene only where issues of regional or national significance are raised. Although of local importance, I do not consider that this latest application raises issues which are significant enough to justify the Secretary of State calling it in for own determination. Indeed, even were this not so, it is unlikely, given the time it takes to determine called in applications, that a decision would be reached much before March 1997.
That paragraph is a pretty permanent feature of the word processor that is driven by the Department of the Environment office for the south-west. It is by no means the first time that that answer—not in this case but in equally important planning matters which I have tried to raise—has been churned out. I urge my hon. Friend and others who are in charge of these matters in future to recognise, especially if they have some experience of these issues, that hon. Members do not seek to press Ministers for public inquiries, which are expensive and lengthy, unless they believe that a principle is involved. I believe that the principle involved in this instance is one of serious and long-standing injustice.
The saga has moved on a little and may well still be playing out in the next 24 hours. In January, North Somerset council, the successor to Woodspring, controlled by Liberal Democrats, applied for a six months' extension to 31 March. It did so two or three days either side of the previous permission running out. No one takes any notice of how long a permission runs: councils go flat-footed into it, ignore the dates, give themselves retrospective permission and away they go for another few months.
Whether North Somerset council will decide tomorrow to give or to extend permission—it is clear that that is what its officers want—is not a matter for us tonight. The problem is that, five years after the saga started, there is no change and no solution.
Various criteria are being used to find a new site. Those criteria are based partly on Avon's requirement that if the site be shut alternative accommodation be found. The traveller who clearly is not prepared to confine himself to the social customs of the rest of the population now seems to be treated infinitely better than the ordinary citizen. The council is considering spending between £350,000 and £400,000 to provide pitches on these 13 sites. It has selected two sites: one in Sandford and one in Hutton Moor road, both of which are entirely unsuitable. The latter is next to a large residential park of elderly people, who have suffered for many years because of trouble with itinerant gipsies; and the former is in a quiet backwater between two nice villages where gipsies have never been and have no business to be.
I question the parameters that have been set. Why must the new site be within five miles of a former school, and why should there be facilities for this, that and the other? The truth of the matter is that the gipsy problem is about integration. It has plagued me all my life—from the time I was a farmer, and throughout my political life. There has been bodging, hedging and dipping rather than facing up to the proper solution.
The Liberal Democrat council in North Somerset is finding practical difficulties. It was responsible for the 13 sites being placed in my constituency. The gipsies did not want to come there: they lived and worked near Bristol, and were imported by Avon county council, which was dominated by the city of Bristol, which did not want anything to do with the gipsies. It pushed them out to the


peripheries, and now the cows will have to come home and the penalty will have to be paid. It is grossly and deeply unfair that my constituents should have to pay.
I appreciate that there is no easy solution to this problem. The Government have changed the parameters: councils are no longer required to find gipsy sites. Strangely enough, my morning paper contains a letter from Councillor Laband, who represents one of those areas. He says:
Nothing is more likely to cause heartfelt anxiety to local residents.
He then says that he wants the true gipsy culture to survive, which I have always thought was rubbish. He finishes by saying that we must have true integration.
These matters are deeply felt by the population. I am glad that Councillor Laband has realised that local government is not all that easy. The solutions that the council is considering will be disruptive and distressing and will cause many of my constituents much heartache. I seek a sympathetic ear, and I hope that my hon. Friend can give me some comfort, or perhaps my successor, as this is certainly the last time that I shall have an Adjournment debate.

The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on obtaining this Adjournment debate, which has given him an opportunity to make clear the strength of his concerns about the gipsy and travellers' site at Willowmead caravan park, near Weston-super-Mare. I have no doubt that those concerns are shared by a number of local residents, and have been since the site was first occupied as a temporary gipsy site in 1992.
My hon. Friend has demonstrated tonight that he and his constituents are aggrieved about the fact that, first, the Labour-run Avon county council and, latterly, the Liberal-controlled North Somerset council favour gipsy provision to which he and those he represents are strongly opposed.
Over the past four years, the Willowmead site has come to the attention of Secretaries of State for the Environment on a number of occasions—for instance, in May 1992, when Woodspring district council objected to its appropriation by Avon county council for the purposes of a gipsy site; in October 1995, when the county council sought to extend temporary planning permission for emergency travellers and the gipsy site by nine months, from 31 December 1995 to 30 September 1996; and in October 1996, when North Somerset council, the new unitary authority, sought to extend temporary planning permission by a further six months—from 30 September 1996 to 31 March 1997.
My hon. Friend will be aware that, on each occasion, the Secretaries of State, after careful consideration of all the available information, had to decide that, although the matter was highly controversial, it could not be said that the issues involved were of regional or national significance—which would have justified their intervention, whether under their then powers under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 or under their powers under the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990. In each case, it was decided that the local planning authority was the appropriate body to determine the proposals on the basis of the material planning considerations that were applicable at the time.
My hon. Friend will also be aware that the most recent planning application to which I have referred is still before North Somerset council. Propriety therefore forbids me to express any opinions on the planning merits of the circumstances that currently exist at Willowmead, or to pass any comment on the present application. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that to do so could prejudice the position of the Secretary of State for the Environment should the matter come before him formally in the future.
Nevertheless, I have listened closely to what my hon. Friend has said this evening, and will take it into account if the matter comes before the Secretary of State at any stage. Equally, I am sure that, if any new information comes to light, my hon. Friend will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. In particular, if the council were to continue extensions of temporary planning permission indefinitely without making progress towards resolution of the issue, it would be perfectly proper for my hon. Friend to take up his concerns again with my right hon. Friend, who would examine the case on its merits.
Although I do not intend to comment on the circumstances at the Willowmead site, I am not unaware of the types of general policy issue that have been touched on by events at Willowmead over the past four years, such as policy on gipsy site provision and on local authorities' own development proposals. I trust that my hon. Friend will be interested if I briefly explain the Government's position on each of those matters—and I hope that he will appreciate that I am not attempting to suggest or imply how these general policies might relate to the specific circumstances at the Willowmead site. That must be the prerogative of North Somerset council, in its capacity as the local planning authority.
Our land use planning policy on gipsy sites is set out in Department of the Environment circular 1/94, entitled "Gypsy Sites and Planning". We encourage gipsies to provide their own accommodation, applying for planning permission when that is necessary, like everyone else. A critical element is to ensure that, when provision is made, amenities and the environment continue to be protected. To help to achieve that, the circular sets out factors that should be taken into account in decisions on planning applications for gipsy sites. Those factors also apply to proposals for local planning authorities' own sites.
Our guidance on gipsy sites fully reflects the plan-led nature of the planning system. The guidance makes it clear that authorities should assess the need for gipsy accommodation in their areas. They should include in their development plans suitable location or criteria-based policies for meeting that need, by provision of local authority or private sites, to provide the statutory framework for determining individual applications.
The inclusion of policies in development plans provides greater certainty in development control. If the development plan does not contain relevant policies, applications should be determined in the light of all material considerations, including the advice in circular 1/94.
There is no longer a duty on local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies who reside in or resort to their region. That duty, which was contained in part II of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, was repealed in November 1994 by section 80 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
My Department's circular, which was issued when the 1994 Act came into force, does, however, stress the importance of local authorities keeping their existing gipsy caravan sites open and maintained. It also reiterates long-standing advice to local authorities that they should consider providing emergency stopping places for gipsies who visit their region regularly, and that they should consider the option of tolerating the presence of gipsies who camp on council land if—I stress this—they are not causing a nuisance.
It is for local authorities to decide how best to maintain their existing gipsy caravan sites and to consider whether it is appropriate to extend the planning permission for temporary sites where planning permission has expired. Local authorities will also wish to consider their statutory responsibilities towards children and homeless persons when taking decisions about the future of their authorised gipsy sites.
The procedures governing local authorities' own development proposals are contained in the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992. The general principle underlying the regulations is that local planning authorities must make planning applications in the same way as any other person applying for planning permission, and must follow the same procedures that would apply to applications that are made by others.
Local authorities may grant themselves planning permission for their own development on land in which they have an interest, but that is subject to several important safeguards: the proposals must be advertised and decided in public by a committee that is not responsible for land management; the public cannot be excluded from such a committee meeting; and, to avoid potential conflicts of interest, applications may not be determined by a committee or officer responsible for the management of the land or buildings concerned.
Another safeguard is that local authority development proposals must be notified to the relevant Government office for the region if they are not in accordance with the provisions of the development plan in force in that region. It is for the local planning authority to decide whether an application represents a departure from the development plan. When applications are notified in that way, careful consideration is given to all the issues raised by the proposal and to how they might relate to the Government's policy on call-in, as described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment on 26 January 1995.
Although a decision on whether to call in an application is normally based on the importance of the issues raised by the application, rather than on the procedures followed by the local planning authority, we do consider whether the handling of the application might raise issues sufficient to justify making an exception to the general

policy. Nevertheless, we believe that planning applications are generally best left, as far as possible, in the hands of the locally accountable planning authority, and we are therefore selective when deciding which applications to call in. I know that my hon. Friend regards that as a paragraph from a word processor, but I do regard local council democracy as stronger than just a few words churned out by electronic equipment.
Following amendments by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991, section 54(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that planning applications, irrespective of whether they are made by a local authority, must be decided in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
In general, the local planning authority's elected members represent the community's interests in planning matters, but, when determining planning applications, they must take into account any relevant views expressed by neighbouring occupiers, local residents and any other third parties, although only genuine land-use planning concerns are material. However, in some cases, there may be positive reasons in favour of development, which will outweigh local objections, however widespread or strongly felt they might be.
Local authorities must of course act within the law, and it is open to any third party who is aggrieved by a local authority's decision to grant itself planning permission to apply for judicial review if they believe that the decision was wrong in law. If they consider that they have suffered personal injustice as a result of maladministration by the council, they may also ask the local government ombudsman to investigate the matter.
Sometimes, local planning authorities will be required to consider whether to grant planning permission for development or change of use of land that has already taken place. I would expect local authorities rarely to find themselves in that position for their own development proposals or land, except in exceptional circumstances.
Where this does arise, however, retrospective planning applications submitted by the local authority, like those submitted by others, should be considered in the same way as other applications. The fact that the development has already taken place should not influence the final decision one way or the other. The same is true for applications that seek to renew or extend planning permission.
I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for drawing the matter to my attention. I have noted the strength of feeling locally about the Willowmead site. At the end of the day, however, the councillors on his local council are accountable for such decisions. He will no doubt want to remind his constituents of that fact. I am grateful to him for bringing the matter to the Floor of the House, and I hope that what I have said this evening will be helpful to him and his constituents in understanding the background of Government policy and the options that are open to him and them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.